]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: continuing documentation
>>>>> Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
TBB> OKUJI Yoshinori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> For now, I'm afraid of two things about that. One of these is that
>> people often write docu
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
TBB> OKUJI Yoshinori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> For now, I'm afraid of two things about that. One of these is that
>> people often write documents and comments differently, of course,
>> intentionally.
TBB> I agree with Okuji here. The job of the comm
OKUJI Yoshinori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For now, I'm afraid of two things about that. One of these is that
> people often write documents and comments differently, of course,
> intentionally. Comments tend to be terse, because too long statements
> are annoying for programmers, while docume
> Maurizio Boriani writes:
MB> This kind of comment is very cool! But I think could be a good
MB> thing also make them for structs or global vars and the scripts
MB> could reletions them and could also design a simple kind
MB> diagram. What do you think? Could be this a good idea?
I like
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 12:10:26PM -0600, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> I don't think this is insurmountable. We could simply avoid the text
> comparison for such functions, assuming that their text will be
> completely different from the source. For some functions, we can
> still do the right thin
> OKUJI Yoshinori writes:
>> Tagging comments is not acceptable to me, because I feel that we
>> have enough information already to make a comparison of text. We
>> know how to collapse simple Texinfo into text, the word order is
>> easy to compare, and with some heuristics, we can gener
From: Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: continuing documentation
Date: 22 Jun 2001 19:16:02 -0600
> Tagging comments is not acceptable to me, because I feel that we have
> enough information already to make a comparison of text. We know how
> to collapse simp
> OKUJI Yoshinori writes:
>> When a `@deftypefun ...' declaration is found, your tool is to
>> compare the rendered text and prototypes. If there are
>> differences, it should ask for human intervention to merge the
>> changes.
OY> Is it necessary to compare descriptions as well as fun
It doesn't support texinfo. This is an advantage to my way of
thinking, but you have your own requirements.
I don't know what you mean by "bidirectional pasting of docs into
source comments. You put the docs into your source comments, and
doxygen pulls them out. You can put quite complex marku
From: Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: continuing documentation
Date: 21 Jun 2001 16:24:02 -0600
> When a `@deftypefun ...' declaration is found, your tool is to compare
> the rendered text and prototypes. If there are differences, it should
> ask for h
I think Ulrich has a script he uses to keep track of functions missing from
the libc manual. It might do part of what you want, and the synthesis of
the two is probably a tool of use to at least libc and hurd, and probably
other projects too. I am against actual automated generation of the
docum
> OKUJI Yoshinori writes:
OY> If you provide me a specification which satifies your
OY> requirement, I may implement such a tool. That would be a quite
OY> easy task. ;)
If you want it, and think it would be fun, I will not stop you. :)
I went through the Hurd header files and took a bun
From: Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: continuing documentation
Date: 21 Jun 2001 15:09:27 -0600
> When I looked at it, doxygen didn't support bidirectional pasting of
> docs into source comments, nor did it support Texinfo.
If you provide me a specificati
> Bill White writes:
BW> Have you looked at doxygen? It lets you put things in the code
BW> or out of it. I'm using it for my current project at my work, in
BW> a design of a symbol table, and I think it's very useful.
When I looked at it, doxygen didn't support bidirectional pasting of
> Hi,
> I think this is a good idea, but I could be usefull a
> tool which can parse some code comment and put out docs about
> code and relations btw different source file. The output
> could be html or sgml (which can be translater in different
> format easly). A similar thing I saw i
Have you looked at doxygen? It lets you put things in the code
or out of it. I'm using it for my current project at my work,
in a design of a symbol table, and I think it's very useful.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 10:11:10AM -0400, Maurizio Boriani wrote:
> -- On 18 Jun 2001 10:34:48 -0600 Gordon M
-- On 18 Jun 2001 10:34:48 -0600 Gordon Matzigkeit wrote --
> I looked at automatic tools for doing this kind of thing, but they all
> failed to provide ways of working around text in the generated output.
> I wouldn't want to put all the text into the header files.
>
> My latest direction has b
17 matches
Mail list logo
