Hi,

as far as I see, the "standard" is still kdoc. Of course,
there are other possibilities, but some time ago it was 
decided to go for kdoc. This was preferred above doxygen
I think because of the signal/slot handling.

And personally I see no reason of switching documentation
systems. kdoc is good, and pretty well documented. And there
is a release "especially" for KDE 2:) 

If the author(s) keep up maintaining kdoc, than kdoc is the
way to go. At any rate, I don't think it makes sense to rewrite
all kde API documentation when there isno clear reason.

Just my 2 cents,
Leon 


On Wed, 7 Jul 1999, Michael Koch wrote:

> Am Mit, 07 Jul 1999 schrieb Stephan Kulow:
> > Michael Koch wrote:
> > > 
> > > > >
> > > > Well, I like to have the documentation in the headers.
> > > 
> > > Well, the documentation is in the headers, but some people (like me) want to
> > > have HTML- or TEX-Documentation of the API. Thatīs why Iīm using kdoc every day.
> > > 
> > Well, I was refering to the way doxygen does it. There most stuff is in
> > the sources.
> 
> Ah, I see, another concept.
> 
> We need to decide this. When the pre-2.0-libs (1.89) are shipped, there should
> be a HTML-documentation included or as extra tgz or whatever. Thats for
> developers switching to KDE-2.0 programming. Different documentation tools used
> in the libs are very bad.
> 
> 
> Ciao,
> Michael
> 
> --
> Michael Koch
> 
> KDE fan, enthusiast and developer
> projects: Katabase and KImageShop
> writing documentation of KOM/OP
> 
> student of computer science at
> university of applied sciences
> Darmstadt, Germany
> 
> koch@kde.org
> m_koch@bigfoot.de
> mkoch@mail.riednet.wh.tu-darmstadt.de
> http://www.riednet.wh.tu-darmstadt.de/~mkoch
>