[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:       Antonio Larrosa =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jim=E9nez?= <antlarr () arrakis ! es>
Date:       2000-10-22 21:19:23
[Download RAW message or body]

Peter Putzer escribi=F3:
> =

> >
> > - Can we force people to use the java doc syntax? I think
> > we should.
> =

> Why? Actually I find the "LaTex" ("\command") syntax easier to read, bu=
t
> that's just a preference.
> =


Peter, can you do a short description of the difference in the
"commands" ? (I've only used @p, @ref, @version, @author and a little
more)

> > - Can we force people to keep their docs in the header files
> > not in the .cpp?
> =

> You can't do that now. If I choose to document something in the .cpp (n=
ot
> that I would, but just in theory), who's there to stop me?
> =


Does that mean that Doxygen doesn't allow having the docs in the
header files ?

> Among others: nice inheritance/use graphs, better support for documenti=
ng
> enums, easy implementation docs (source-browser, ...)
> =

> http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/features.html#features

Can you provide better a link to an already generated example =

documentation from the KDE sources ? That way it would be better
to compare.

I'm in the same position than Richard here, I don't see any need
to change what is not broken unless it gives much better features.

Greetings,

--
Antonio Larrosa Jimenez
KDE core developer
antlarr@arrakis.es        larrosa@kde.org
http://www.arrakis.es/~rlarrosa
KDE - The development framework of the future, today.

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