Gavin Smith <gavinsmith0...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 11:50:35AM +0100, Arsen Arsenović wrote: >> I also saw that you were concerned about the OOP documentation >> facilities, but this approach appears to be general enough to handle >> those too. Am I missing something? > > The reality seems to be that people don't use Texinfo to document C++ > libraries very much and I don't really understand why but I doubt > it is really suited for it. What we'd really need is an example of a > manual where it was done well or some project that was willing to > work with us in documenting a library in an OOP way using Texinfo > so we could be aware of what the needs were.
That might be the case, but I do intend to use it in such a way in the future, so, should that happen, I'll keep you posted. Keep in mind, also, that GNU poke has methods, at the very least, and so could be a point of reference. My question was a bit different, though: it seems to me that a linemacro/defline based abstraction could provide enough flexibility for documenting OO code, what do you think is missing? -- Arsen Arsenović
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
