Re: question about using Doxygen

John Maddock wrote:

>
> Not sure if this helps, John.

Thanks to everyone for their feedback.  I find it very helpful.  Since 
posting the question
I found the section "about the documentation" in the geometry library which
is helpful also.  I did peruse the document areas of different libraries and
found wide variation - rather than any sort of consensus - hence my 
question.

Edward Diener wrote:
> On 6/20/2011 7:19 PM, Robert Ramey wrote:
>> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/Guidelines/DoxygenGuidelines
>>
>> contains this text
>>
>> Documenting the Reference section following the C++ standard style
>> Doxygen provides a certain number of tags that allows to generate a
>> clean documentation, but it would be great if all the Boost
>> libraries document its Reference section following the C++ standard
>> style.
>
> What is the "C++ standard style" ?

I'm assuming that this means style similar to the SGI documentation
for stl libraries.  I was sort of expecting to find some sort of
"form filling" approach or something "automatically" generated
ala Doxygen.  It's interesting to me (but not surprising) that their
is a wide difference of opinion as to the utility of Doxygen in our
context.  I'm quite intrigued by this.

My current (toy) project has not classes per se - it's all concepts
a la fusion.  So I don't see a good place where something like Doxygen
fits in.  Unless ....

I've created Concepts using BoostConceptLibrary for all the concepts
I use.  Now it's occuring to me that perhaps Doxygen comments might
best be applied to these concept checking classes.  They're templates -
but I don't see that this should be an insurmountable problem.

Robert Ramey