[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: Proposal: replace KDOC with Doxygen after 2.0 (fwd)
From:       Peter Putzer <pputzer () edu ! uni-klu ! ac ! at>
Date:       2000-10-22 21:09:44
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Richard Moore wrote:

> 
> 
> Peter Putzer wrote:
> > 
> > On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Richard Moore wrote:
> > >
> > > > - Can we force people to keep their docs in the header files
> > > > not in the .cpp?
> > >
> > > I think we should - if I'm just an applications developer, I won't have
> > > the full KDE source installed anyway, but I'll have the headers, so if I
> > > need to look something up, I'm much more likely to look into the headers
> > > than into the actual source.
> > 
> > I don't quite get it. If we're talking about "tool" comments
> > (KDOC/Doxygen) then neither the headers nor the implementation is
> > required, only the generated documentation. If you're talking about plain
> > "human readable" comments, then those already are in the .cpp files.
> > 
> > Besides, reading @nice KDOC @syntax is not @so easy, is @it?
> 
> Yes, or at least it's certainly no worse than Latex. In addition
> there are a great many people who are used to it, because it used
> by many tools these days.

It's personal preference. I find the "@" more obtrusive than the "\",
probably because it is less "black".

But that doesn't matter, I can live with "@", and that's all the
difference. The commands themselves are the same, whether using
"javadoc"- or "latex"-style

bye,
Peter

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]