Re: %feature("docstring") syntax
William S Fulton <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.programming.swig |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CANGqftDFKVthrjD54tTt+Qa4fct_8Rn3q6kFjjRcyeYq9L5wAA@mail.gmail.com> |
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 22:03, Seth G <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks William. > > I had started to experiment with the doxygen support. Initially I thought > it didn't work as I was also using the %feature("autodoc") feature which > overrides it, but I see this may be changed in the 4.1 release - > https://github.com/swig/swig/issues/1635 > > The doxygen approach is much cleaner and avoids lots of SWIG directives in > header files etc. to add documents to properties. > > Are there any disadvantages of doxygen over %feature("docstring") ? > As I understand it the former works for Python and Java, and the latter > for Python and Ruby. > Yes the above differences are correct at the moment. We would of course appreciate any Ruby users contributing doxygen support to convert into Ruby comments for consumption with something like YARD. docstring is very much a SWIG only to documentation and Doxygen is more powerful and widely used and would be additionally useful in the C++ code you are wrapping and so may be a preferable option. William _______________________________________________ Swig-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swig-user