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

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: [patch] request for review - apidox for kdelibs/kdeui (long)
From:       Stephan Kulow <coolo () kde ! org>
Date:       2003-09-09 10:43:18
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tuesday 09 September 2003 12:20, Brad Hards wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 20:00 pm, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> > > In that case, wouldn't it make more sense not to define KDE_NO_COMPAT
> > > when building the documentation:
> >
> > [patch]
> >
> > This would make all the deprecated API calls invisible to doxygen and you
> > have no way to document it.
> OK, then I'm confused again. If we #define KDE_NO_COMPAT, we remove reference
> to all the deprecated calls (since they are all wrapped in #ifndef), which is
> not what we want.
> 
> Can you explain this to me again?
s,calls,methods, in my statement

In a book you don't want to tell about the deprecated API, but in an online docu
you want people to find out what they should use instead when they port their
apps. But if you predefine KDE_NO_COMPAT, then doxygen doesn't see that docu
at all.

Greetings, Stephan

-- 
There may be no I in TEAM, but a M and an E.
 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]