Re: Sphinx integration
Dave Abrahams <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.boost.documentation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
on Tue Oct 04 2011, Mateusz Loskot <mateusz-AT-loskot.net> wrote: > On 03/10/11 15:04, Dave Abrahams wrote: >> > >> on Sun Oct 02 2011, Edward Diener <eldiener-AT-tropicsoft.com> wrote: >> >>> If concepts had been voted into C++0x, then no doubt doxygen would >>> have considered documenting it as a C++ construct. >>> >>> Conversely there is no limit in doxygen to documenting whatever you >>> want as free-from doxygen documentation and so you could document >>> concepts' in doxygen if you wanted to do so in whatever format you >>> like. There are a number of techniques for this but probably the >>> easiest is to just add such documentation to a @file documentation, >>> and it will show up in the final output. >> >> But what's the advantage in that over, say, just using quickbook, >> boostbook, or any of the other non-automatic tools for that part of the >> documentation? > > One of important Doxygen features is it extracts and interlinks C++ > names/symbols (with or without attached documentation). > BoostBook could use this interlinking capability and generate the > relations we lack currently: > - concepts > - models > - template parameters to concepts as type requirements > > I think this interlinking is one of most important features that is > missing from the docs in current form. Although, I must say, it has always seemed to me that those kinds of links could be set up mostly-automatically by any tool, with very little markup of any kind needed to make them work. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com