Hi Daniel,
One of the issues with the @members command is the definition of where the
group ends. I'm sure there are different (and equally correct)
opinions/expectations about that, e.g.
class Test
{
public:
/** @members A group
*/
void func1();
void func2();
private:
int var;
};
will the group include var or not? i.e. does a group locigally end at
"private:" and if so then what if there was no "private:"?
Nevertheless, if you have a patch that implements the @members
command, I'll merge it.
Regards,
Dimitri
On 2/8/06, Daniel Ferber <dan...@te...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I would like to propose a shorter, easier and more readable syntax for
> grouping members in a class. I searched the mail archive but didnt find
> messages about this.
>
> With doxygen, if I want to create a group of class members, nowadays I
> have to
> write:
> /**
> * @name ...
> * About the group
> */
> //@{
> ...
> //@}
>
> My suggestion is to create a new command (eg @members) that automatically
> starts a new group which goes until the next @members or until the class
> is
> closed.
>
> /**
> * @members About the group
> */
> ....
>
> /**
> * @members About the group
> */
> ....
>
> IMHO, my suggestion is simplier and more readable.
> In large classes, with many groups, the lines with //@} and //@{
> comments
> make them difficult to read. IDEs do not understand these comments and do
> not
> provide folding or hiding. The grouping results in an overhead of 4
> additional lines. The //@} and //@{ are difficult to see and easy to
> forget.
>
> On well organized projects, class attributes and methods are frequently
> grouped. I like to group them at least like: attributes, references,
> constructor/destructor and several groups of methods.
> As this kind of grouping is very frequent, I believe that it could have a
> special syntax for it.
>
> I am only concerned with classes, but I think a more gerenal model could
> be
> implemented to make grouping of other entities easier and more readable.
>
> Thanks,
> DAniel FF
>
>
>
|
