[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: TexInfo -> Doxygen
From: |
Sean Young |
Subject: |
Re: TexInfo -> Doxygen |
Date: |
Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:23:37 +1300 |
Hi Ben,
One thing I forgot to mention is that this is only going to be for liboctave
(which makes sense for C++ sources I guess) - doxygen has a syntax akin to that
of TeX, but we'd still need to do some minimal translation of the TexInfo.
On 24/01/2011, at 1:45 PM, Ben Abbott wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2011, at 7:33 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
>
>> On 23 January 2011 16:53, Sean Young <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> Jordi has suggested that the current TexInfo documentation be moved
>>> to Doxygen format inside the c++ files
>>
>> Before someone kills me for suggesting to a newcomer that we drop
>> TeXinfo, I didn't quite mean that. I only said that probably the
>> incomplete documentation currently under doc/liboctave should probably
>> be inlined into the C++ sources with Doxygen. We already publish
>> bare-bones Doxygen output in octave.sf.net, and having the docstrings
>> next to the source will probably motivate us to write more (and also
>> get rid of my personal beef with "undocumented internal function").
>>
>> - Jordi G. H.
>
> I've never used Doxygen, but I'd like the idea of a systemic approach to
> documenting how the source code works.
>
> Which is entirely different that what the texinfo stuff does. Which is to
> document Octave's syntax.
>
> is the idea to have the texinfo stuff present in the doxygen output?
>
> Ben
TexInfo -> Doxygen, John W. Eaton, 2011/01/23
Re: TexInfo -> Doxygen, Søren Hauberg, 2011/01/24
- Re: TexInfo -> Doxygen, John W. Eaton, 2011/01/24
- Re: TexInfo -> Doxygen, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2011/01/24
- Re: TexInfo -> Doxygen, John W. Eaton, 2011/01/24
- Re: TexInfo -> Doxygen, Søren Hauberg, 2011/01/24
- Re: TexInfo -> Doxygen, Robert T. Short, 2011/01/24
- Re: TexInfo -> Doxygen, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2011/01/24