Re: The beauty of LATEX
"Paul A. Bristow" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.boost.documentation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Joel de Guzman > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:08 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] The beauty of LATEX > > Yet, I value beauty as well. I'm sure you've seen the LaTex math. XeTex did it better with unicode support. > The support there is very mature and looks splendid! OK - I'm fine with beauty too - and handling math is just nasty using current tools. > To me, Doxygen is out of the question. I'm not a fan of the Doxygen or its presentation either. >IMO, a C++ library is not just a bunch of Java-ish classes, member functions and functions API for which Doxygen is designed for. But surely documenting the classes, member functions and functions API is *part* of the task we are discussing? So I really, really do want to see *a* way of helping authors to provide that information. The Doxygen C++ code comments /pre /post /param /tparam /returns provide it : "source coupled documentation" as Rene Rivera dubs it. I'm adamant that this requires a tool that 'understands' C++ (Gcc/Clang?) : that's all that many libraries are using Doxygen for. Some libraries do this using html or Quickbook tables, but that doesn't provide any link to the actual code, so the two can get out of step easily, and you can't warn about items that you haven't documented. And it's even more hard and tedious work than writing comments in the code, so I would fault many of these libraries as being thin and/or incomplete on detail, if good on tutorial and examples. If you can accept the need for this, then it *is* part of the answer to your question. Quickbook already has some understanding of C++ - to process snippets. If it had much more? ... wonderful! Paul --- Paul A. Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB UK +44 1539 561830 07714330204 [email protected]