doxygen-users — List for users of doxygen

[Doxygen-users] Omitting friend declarations from the documentation

[Stephen G. <ste...@el...>]

Is there a way to tell Doxygen to omit a friend declaration from the
generated documentation?

When creating the user documentation for a library I'd like to hide away
all the details of the implementation, so I have an abstract class
defined in the public header and a concrete class in the implementation.
To discourage the user from trying to derive from the abstract class its
constructor is declared private and the concrete derived class is
declared a friend. Not pretty, but never mind.

Running this through Doxygen, the 'friend' declaration appears, which
means that the user is made aware of the existence - and name - of the
concrete class.

Is it possible to stop Doxygen from including that 'friend' declaration?
Perhaps, as the user documentation is generated with EXTRACT_PRIVATE set
to NO, a 'friend' declaration inside the private: portion of a class
could be treated as any other private member and omitted?

TIA,
Stephen Goudge

Aside: I am aware that I could, pretty much, get the behaviour wanted,
in both the documentation and the way the code behaves, by using a
wrapper class with a private pointer to the concrete object and making
the wrapper delegate via that pointer, as the user documentation doesn't
include the private data - but there is a lot of code to edit :-(
Perhaps if I'd written user documentation first, like teacher said...

[Doxygen-users] Null-op comments

[Stephen G. <ste...@el...>]

Is there a proper way to do the following with Doxygen?

Inside a header file I have a number of Doxygen comment blocks that
follow each other; for example, just above an enum appears:

/*-----------------------------------------*/
/*! \defgroup enum_entity Entities

  Blather to describe what an entity is
*/
/*-----------------------------------------*/
/*! \ingroup enum_entity

  Blah blah
*/
enum Entity
{
 // interesting stuff in here
};

where the lines of dashes in a comment are just there to break things up
and make it easier to spot where the break is between the (in reality,
pretty big) Doxygen comments.

Left as it appears above, when you look at Doxygen's page listing source
of this header, as the Dox-comments are not included in that page, there
are a load of mysterious separator lines in the listing, with nothing to
separate:

/*-----------------------------------------*/
/*-----------------------------------------*/
enum Entity

...etc

To tidy things up, I've just turned the separator lines into Doxygen
comments with the addition of a pling:

/*!-----------------------------------------*/

and both the original source and the Doxygen listing look lovely.

BUT I can't help thinking that Doxygen is doing _something_ with those
extra dox-comments and they'll re-appear somewhere unexpected, perhaps
not today, but soon...

Is there a proper, Doxygen-sanctioned way of adding these null-op,
'noise', comments and being sure that Doxygen will strip them from the
generated listing page but otherwise just ignore them?

TIA,
Stephen Goudge

RE: [Doxygen-users] Multiple comments -combining

[Stephen G. <ste...@el...>]

The simple combining of comments is a feature that I'd certainly use.

As others (eg, Victor Wagner) do, we generate two lots of documentation
from the sources for one library - one set from the public headers,
detailing the API and examples for users, one with all the
implementation detail for maintainers.

We decide what files are read for each set of docs by which directories
are scanned by Doxygen (so there are two Doxygen configuration files).
So to selectively add in comments one just has to decide which directory
to put them into: the configuration files I write basically discourage
putting public headers files and private implementation files into the
same directory. You could get the same effect by writing the
configuration files to match the specifics of your code: anything that
lets you list the public files in one config and then all the files in
the other config (continue for however many sets of docs you want to
generate).

I guess I'm saying I don't understand the need for the additional
complexity of the scheme as described by Victor: perhaps some
explanation as to why the existing mechanisms for selectively including
comments (by selecting files) aren't enough if Doxygen just gains a
simple ability to combine comments.

Stephen Goudge


> -----Original Message-----
> From: dox...@li...
> [mailto:dox...@li...] On Behalf
> Of Wagner, Victor
> Sent: 14 November 2001 16:37
> To: 'jan...@co...';
> dox...@li...
> Subject: RE: [Doxygen-users] Multiple comments -combining
>
>
> If this were to be implemented (and it looks like the start
> of a pretty good idea), I would like to see the comments from
> the source code being optionally added.  I reason thusly:
>
> The header file is "public".  Everyone who has access to it
> can read the comments there if desired. The implementation
> file (.c, .cpp, whatever) is generally information for the
> developers.  Not everyone has access to this file. At our
> office we generate two versions of Doxygen output... one for
> "users" the other for "developers". The ability to add
> information to the comments _must_, IMO, be selectable.
>
> For generality here, I offer three different possibilities,
> two of which require the comments processor to be given a new
> optional numeric argument.
>
> 1) the config file adds a numeric value which (if the
> 'number' on the comments is < than the config, the comments
> will be added).  I choose smaller, so that you can add more
> and more 'secret' comments to your hearts content.
>
> 2) the config file adds a numeric value which if ANDED with
> the comment argument results in a non-zero value, the
> comments will be added.  This would allow for a set of up to
> (32??) "classes" of elements which could be arbitrarily selected.
>
> 3) pretty complete generality:  Change the comments processor
> to accept an arbitrary list of "ID"s to identify the
> "class"(es) to which this comment belongs.  The config would
> also add an arbitrary list of "ID"s to identify which
> "class"(es) of comments to include.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jan...@co...
> [mailto:jan...@co...]
> Sent: Wednesday, 2001
> November 14 10:27
> To: dox...@li...
> Subject: [Doxygen-users] Multiple comments -combining
>
>
> Hi All
>
> Is there any possibility to join multiple comments into one
> description? I would like to have possibility to add the
> comments in header and in source code. The rule that only one
> description is allowed is pretty limiting :-(. I agree with
> the rule of only one brief description, but the detailed
> description should be possible to expand. For example I would
> like to add some comments to the source code that is not my
> and I want to have comments in separated file. If the
> consistency would be an issue there can be option in Doxyfile
> to turn this thing on/off.
>
> Thanks
>
> 	Honza
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Doxygen-users mailing list
> Dox...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> Doxygen-users mailing list
> Dox...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-users
>
>

RE: [Doxygen-users] How can I insert a date and time stamp?

[Wagner, V. <VW...@se...>]

I believe that there is a current date and current time available in the
HTML header/footer
I know that my docs all have the last run time on them

-----Original Message-----
From: jansb000 [mailto:jan...@wx...]
Sent: Wednesday, 2001 November 14 15:01
To: dox...@li...
Subject: [Doxygen-users] How can I insert a date and time stamp?


In the doxygen configuration file is a setting "version". Can I put
something there that represents the system time?

We have a script running that regenerates the source-doc automatically. It
would be handy to see on the "index.html" page the latest date when the
documentation was generated.



_______________________________________________
Doxygen-users mailing list
Dox...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-users

[Doxygen-users] Problem with xalloc

[jansb000 <jan...@wx...>]

I use doxygen on linux. I also use dot.

Sometimes I see an error message when generating source docs about 3 bytes
that couldn't be allocated by xalloc.
Is this a known bug???

[Doxygen-users] How can I insert a date and time stamp?

[jansb000 <jan...@wx...>]

In the doxygen configuration file is a setting "version". Can I put
something there that represents the system time?

We have a script running that regenerates the source-doc automatically. It
would be handy to see on the "index.html" page the latest date when the
documentation was generated.

Re: [Doxygen-users] Multiple comments -combining

[Bogdan I. <bog...@ya...>]

I agree. Having such an option would help me a lot as well.

Cheers,
Bogdan



----- Original Message -----
From: <jan...@co...>
To: <dox...@li...>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 5:26 PM
Subject: [Doxygen-users] Multiple comments -combining


> Hi All
>
> Is there any possibility to join multiple comments into one description?
> I would like to have possibility to add the comments in header and in
> source code.
> The rule that only one description is allowed is pretty limiting :-(.
> I agree with the rule of only one brief description, but the detailed
> description should be possible to expand.
> For example I would like to add some comments to the source code that is
> not my and I want to have comments in separated file.
> If the consistency would be an issue there can be option in Doxyfile to
> turn this thing on/off.
>
> Thanks
>
> Honza
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Doxygen-users mailing list
> Dox...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-users


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

RE: [Doxygen-users] Multiple comments -combining

[Wagner, V. <VW...@se...>]

If this were to be implemented (and it looks like the start of a pretty good
idea), I would like to see the comments from the source code being
optionally added.  I reason thusly:

The header file is "public".  Everyone who has access to it can read the
comments there if desired.
The implementation file (.c, .cpp, whatever) is generally information for
the developers.  Not everyone has access to this file.
At our office we generate two versions of Doxygen output... one for "users"
the other for "developers".
The ability to add information to the comments _must_, IMO, be selectable.

For generality here, I offer three different possibilities, two of which
require the comments processor to be given a new optional numeric argument.

1) the config file adds a numeric value which (if the 'number' on the
comments is < than the config, the comments will be added).  I choose
smaller, so that you can add more and more 'secret' comments to your hearts
content.

2) the config file adds a numeric value which if ANDED with the comment
argument results in a non-zero value, the comments will be added.  This
would allow for a set of up to (32??) "classes" of elements which could be
arbitrarily selected.

3) pretty complete generality:  Change the comments processor to accept an
arbitrary list of "ID"s to identify the "class"(es) to which this comment
belongs.  The config would also add an arbitrary list of "ID"s to identify
which "class"(es) of comments to include.


-----Original Message-----
From: jan...@co...
[mailto:jan...@co...]
Sent: Wednesday, 2001 November 14 10:27
To: dox...@li...
Subject: [Doxygen-users] Multiple comments -combining


Hi All

Is there any possibility to join multiple comments into one description?
I would like to have possibility to add the comments in header and in 
source code.
The rule that only one description is allowed is pretty limiting :-(.
I agree with the rule of only one brief description, but the detailed 
description should be possible to expand.
For example I would like to add some comments to the source code that is 
not my and I want to have comments in separated file.
If the consistency would be an issue there can be option in Doxyfile to 
turn this thing on/off.

Thanks

	Honza


_______________________________________________
Doxygen-users mailing list
Dox...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-users

RE: [Doxygen-users] Multiple comments -combining

[Glenn M. <gle...@vo...>]

You might be able to get this to work if you added a prototype line to
the description to force the comment to go where you want. The only
problem with this is that the line with the prototype has to be
maintained. If you change your code without changing this line, it will
break.

For example, assume that you have a class with a member function
HHH::bogus(int doofus) defined. It appears in the header and source
file. Let's assume that you want the source file to be the "master". To
any comment blocks in the header file that are to appear with the
"master" documentation in the source file, you would add at the
beginning:

// h file
/** @fn bogus(int doofus)
 ** Additional comments about bogus.
 ** More comments about bogus.
 **/
HHH::bogus(int)

// cpp file
/** @brief this is all about bogus.
 ** @param doofus is not important.
 **/
HHH::bogus(int doofus)

I may have this backwards in terms of what you have to use as the
master.

I do know that by adding a prototype statement to a comment block, I can
"route" the comment from the closest, logical code element to another
code element that was defined.

I'm not sure how this will work when you want it to go to essentially
the same thing. This is why something "non-standard" might help. If you
cpp file had the complete definition including variable name but your h
file only had the variable type, the @fn prototype statement won't be
confused as to where it belongs.

The two obvious problems are: (1) your h/cpp definitions differ, (2)
your adding another prototype definition that has to be maintained.

HTH,
Glenn Maxey
Technical Writer
Voyant Technologies, Inc.
1765 West 121st Avenue
Westminster, CO 80234-2301
Tel. +1 303.223.5164
Fax. +1 303.223.5275
gle...@vo...



> -----Original Message-----
> From: jan...@co...
> [mailto:jan...@co...]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 8:27 AM
> To: dox...@li...
> Subject: [Doxygen-users] Multiple comments -combining
>=20
>=20
> Hi All
>=20
> Is there any possibility to join multiple comments into one=20
> description?
> I would like to have possibility to add the comments in header and in=20
> source code.
> The rule that only one description is allowed is pretty limiting :-(.
> I agree with the rule of only one brief description, but the detailed=20
> description should be possible to expand.
> For example I would like to add some comments to the source=20
> code that is=20
> not my and I want to have comments in separated file.
> If the consistency would be an issue there can be option in=20
> Doxyfile to=20
> turn this thing on/off.
>=20
> Thanks
>=20
> 	Honza
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Doxygen-users mailing list
> Dox...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-users
>=20

Re: [Doxygen-users] referencing methods in generated code

[Chris N. <cn...@zo...>]

On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 09:27:35AM +0100, Jesper K. Pedersen wrote:
> I would like to reference methods in the generated HTML, but looking at the
> HTML, I see that the named tags are somthing like "a3", rather than
> something including the method names. 
> 
> Example:
> <a name="a1" doxytag="KDConfigWidget::addGroup"></a>
> 
> My question thus is, is it possible to reference this location using
> KDConfigWidget::addGroup rather than "a1"? 

Doxygen does this quite automatically with the automatic tags.
In your documentation, refer to KDConfigWidget::addGroup, or to
#addGroup. The link to the class will appear in the output.

Greetings,
Chris Niekel

[Doxygen-users] Multiple comments -combining

[<jan...@co...>]

Hi All

Is there any possibility to join multiple comments into one description?
I would like to have possibility to add the comments in header and in 
source code.
The rule that only one description is allowed is pretty limiting :-(.
I agree with the rule of only one brief description, but the detailed 
description should be possible to expand.
For example I would like to add some comments to the source code that is 
not my and I want to have comments in separated file.
If the consistency would be an issue there can be option in Doxyfile to 
turn this thing on/off.

Thanks

	Honza

[Doxygen-users] Need a little help getting going..

[Thomas D. A. <tar...@ya...>]

Hey all

I'm new at this and I really want to get doxygen going on my Solaris 8
machines.. first off, I dont have Qt installed.. Where can I get just the
QT toolkit from ? Do I have to purchase? If anyone has installed on sol 8,
and special instructions?

Thats it for now!

Thanks all

Tom 

[Doxygen-users] Q_PROPERTY macro

[<bl...@kl...>]

Doxygen doesn't seem to like the Q_PROPERTY macro. When included in the
header file (without a trailing semicolon) doxygen will not generate any
documentation for the methods of the class.

I suspect I need to leave out the semicolon after Q_PROPERTY for similar
reasons to leaving it out for Q_OBJECT.

Kind Regards Jesper.

PS: Searching in the archive results in the following error message:
    Unable to read configuration file '/bigassraid/htdig//conf/11668.conf'

Re: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style

[<cy...@so...>]

> Microsoft likes to make changes and it does not like to follow
> standards, sometimes.  Too tight integration of MSDN Style
> could spoil the doxygen core later.

What constitutes "MSDN Style" ? Is it copying their internal structure, or
emulating their aspect (which I also find very clean and neat) ?

If the latter, I fail to see what justifies IE-specific hacks, or what would
make doxygen a hostage of MSDN's own evolutions. I, for one, would love to
see an MSDN-looking HTML generator, which would not tie one to CHM
generation (for distributing a released documentation CHM makes sense; but
does it really, for documentation which is updated at every CVS commit ?)

    -- Cyrille

[Doxygen-users] referencing methods in generated code

[<bl...@bl...>]

I would like to reference methods in the generated HTML, but looking at the
HTML, I see that the named tags are somthing like "a3", rather than
something including the method names. 

Example:
<a name="a1" doxytag="KDConfigWidget::addGroup"></a>

My question thus is, is it possible to reference this location using
KDConfigWidget::addGroup rather than "a1"? 

Kind Regards
Jesper.

PS: Sorry if this turns out to be a dummy HTML question....

[Doxygen-users] Doxygen-1.2.11-20011111 in CVS

[Dimitri v. H. <di...@st...>]

Hi,

Just some minor changes this week:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
+ ADD: Included update for Russian & Czech and Petr's translator adapter
       simplifications.
+ BUG: Improved source code parser some more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Enjoy,
  Dimitri

Re: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style

[Dimitri v. H. <di...@st...>]

On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 03:28:32PM +0300, Aleksandr Vital%evic Celpanov wrote:
> 	I have a some questions.
> 	1. What is target of restructuring doxygen? There are a 2
> different ways, in my opinion.
> a) sources -> doxygen_parser.exe -> xml -> latexgen -> latex
> 							-> htmlgen ->
> html
> 							...
> 			
> b) sources -> doxygen_parser.lib + xmlgen -> xml
> 		-> doxygen_parser.lib + htmlgen -> html

What I'm aiming for is:

sources -> doxygen.exe (incl xmlgen) -> xml -> 
   htmlgen.exe (using doxygen_xmlparser.lib) -> html

How doxygen_xmlparser.lib will evolve can be seen in addon/xmlparse.

> 
> 	2. Will doxygen_parser parse comments (\brief, \param)? 

For \brief there will be (already is in fact) a different section.
\param will be a specific xml command.

For instance 

    /*! \brief A method.
     *
     *  \param b an integer.
     */

will result in:

        <briefdescription>
          <para>
            A method. 
          </para>
        </briefdescription>
        <detaileddescription>
          <para>
            <parameterlist kind="param">
              <parametername>b</parametername>
              <parameterdescription><para>an integer. </para>
              </parameterdescription>
            </parameterlist>
          </para>
        </detaileddescription>

Please look at the current XML output for more details.

> If it
> will, how it can parse
> specific for output tags, like \htmlonly ? 

Commands like \htmlonly will either disappear or turned into some 
internally unformatted tags like <htmlonly>...</htmlonly>. I haven't
decided yet.

> 	3. Will Doxyfile be sharable for parser & latexgen & etc. and
> where it will be.

The idea is that the configuration file parser is separate library,
containing the options for the engine only. Output formats can extend
the config file with specific options. So it is the output generators that
will generate the template configuration file for a specific format, but
doing so will be easy for the programmer and use a common library (part of
the doxygen distribution).

> 	4. Do you want to split current version of doxygen to parser,
> latextgen, htmlgen, etc
> or you stay latex, htmlgen etc. in doxygen and new doxygen struct will
> creating for new output formats only.

For the time being the current output generators will be kept and maintained,
but in the end they will be removed and replaced by separate executables,
all based on the same xml output.

> 	Other questions depends on aforesaid.

I open for questions/suggestions. Things can still change if needed ;-)

Regards,
  Dimitri

Re: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style

[Dimitri v. H. <di...@st...>]

On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 12:54:02PM -0500, Christian Ratliff wrote:
> 
>   At this point I regret having even asked in the first place.

You shouldn't. I think it is clear now that this is a bit of a
controversial topic ;-)

Anyway as Germar suggested I should better work on the XML output & parser,
so that the HTML output can be generated from that, and than it is
much cleaner to add more diverse look'n'feels in that generator (or 
a different generator if that is less work). Aleksandr has already 
offered to help so that's very kind. And those running a Microsoft shop 
should have more patience and help coding :-)

Regards,
  Dimitri

RE: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style

[Christian R. <cra...@de...>]

  At this point I regret having even asked in the first place.

sorry!
christian

+-----+
Christian Ratliff <cra...@de...>
Sr. Technology Architect / Core Libraries Group
DeLorme Publishing Co.
"This is the very perfection of man, 
  to find out his own imperfections" -  St. Augustine

RE: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style

[Sten D. <sd...@ne...>]

well, ...

> I'm lazy and F1 on internal classes and functions would be nice.

...I'm lazy too, so I've also used MSDNIntegrator to get doxygen generated
docs into MSDN.

> The main problem I've have with
> doxygen and CHM, is that the index doesn't quite seem right.

Mine works fine - and the above illustrates the point or concern: Getting
MSDN looks may spin off 'funny' errors in doxygen, and that does not
convince anybody - it just ruins a good tool, even for those *not* living in
the M$-world.
I *do* program on Windows and live in that world, but I don't need it to
look like Microsoft if it dosn'e serve a distint purpose ?! - likewise we
use make-systems and not 'F7' from DevStudio, because it make us happy, so
if '..to convince..' is the *only* reason for MSDN-looks, I see a buggy
future for doxygen with little to gain otherwise (no new features of
doxygen).

My primary focus is the documentation of the source and one's
develop-environment - *not* the looks of the font-size !! (go on - flame me
;-)

sten

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dox...@li...
> [mailto:dox...@li...]On Behalf Of Adam
> Tegen
> Sent: 09 November 2001 16:25
> To: dox...@li...
> Subject: RE: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style
>
>
> For my two cents, I certainly see value in the MSDN look.
> The compnay I
> work for has adopted Doxygen as its documentation standard.
> It certainly
> would be nice if I could convince them to use the DevStudio
> help integrator:
> I'm lazy and F1 on internal classes and functions would be
> nice.  MSDN look
> would go a long way towards that goal.  The main problem I've
> have with
> doxygen and CHM, is that the index doesn't quite seem right.
> Maybe its just
> me, but in my index, I get: Classname, with a subitem of the
> destructor, and
> it was subitems of the rest of the functions.  Has anyone
> else seen that?
>
> Adam
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Sten Darre [SMTP:sd...@ne...]
> > Sent:	Friday, November 09, 2001 8:47 AM
> > To:	dox...@li...
> > Subject:	RE: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style
> >
> > This might be a little out of thread, but I don't think
> MSDN-look-and-feel
> > is going to make the difference as to '..to convince people..'.
> > Since it might look allright - but it isn't a real
> Micro$oft-tool, hence
> > they won't trust doxygen anyway.
> >
> > They either just love it or hate it... no matter what
> layout is used -
> > just
> > my humble experince ;-)
> >
> > Personally I think either layout is nice.
> >
> > greets
> >
> > sten
> >
> > >   As for Germar's political perspective, whatever! We are a
> > > Microsoft shop,
> > > and right now I just want to convince people to start
> auto generating
> > > documentation. The MSDN-style is my best chance to do that,
> > > since we are all
> > > familiar with that format.
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dox...@li...
> > > [mailto:dox...@li...]On
> Behalf Of Wagner,
> > > Victor
> > > Sent: 09 November 2001 14:48
> > > To: 'Christian Ratliff'; 'dox...@li...'
> > > Subject: RE: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style
> > >
> > >
> > > Poor management decisions on the part of  your company is no
> > > reason to risk
> > > breaking what is a GREAT tool for the rest of us.  If you're
> > > so proud of
> > > being a "Microsoft shop" ask THEN for THEIR automatic
> > > documentation tool.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Christian Ratliff [mailto:cra...@de...]
> > > Sent: Friday, 2001 November 09 06:05
> > > To: 'dox...@li...'
> > > Subject: RE: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style
> > >
> > >
> > > Dimitri,
> > >
> > >   What can I do to help get this patch in? If it is through
> > > some "style
> > > interface hook" mechanism, which Germar mentions, I am
> glad to offer
> > > whatever assistance I can.
> > >   As for Germar's political perspective, whatever! We are a
> > > Microsoft shop,
> > > and right now I just want to convince people to start
> auto generating
> > > documentation. The MSDN-style is my best chance to do that,
> > > since we are all
> > > familiar with that format.
> > >
> > > christian
> > >
> > > +-----+
> > > Christian Ratliff <cra...@de...>
> > > Sr. Technology Architect
> > > Core Libraries Group, DeLorme
> > > "This is the very perfection of man,
> > >   to find out his own imperfections" -  St. Augustine
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Dimitri van Heesch [mailto:di...@st...]
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 4:25 PM
> > > To: dox...@li...
> > > Subject: Re: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 08:25:21AM -0500, Christian Ratliff wrote:
> > > > Hello all,
> > > >
> > > >   Has the MSDN style been merged into the code base in CVS
> > > yet? We use
> > > > that style for all of our auto-generated documentation
> now, but I
> > > > would prefer to move to a more recent release than 1.2.6. I
> > > have been
> > > > monitoring the recent change logs, but perhaps I overlooked its
> > > > mention.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm still investigating the impact of Alexandr Chelpanov's patch.
> > > It is quite huge, still has rough edges, and introduces a lot
> > > of conditional
> > >
> > > code (mostly only for html, and even some IE specific stuff),
> > > so from a
> > > test/maintenance point of view I am not overly enthousiastic yet.
> > >
> > > >From a user point of view I can understand the MSDN style
> > > feature is nice
> > > though.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >   Dimitri
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Doxygen-users mailing list
> > > Dox...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-users
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Doxygen-users mailing list
> > > Dox...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-users
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Doxygen-users mailing list
> > > Dox...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-users
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Doxygen-users mailing list
> > Dox...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> Doxygen-users mailing list
> Dox...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-users
>

RE: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style

[Adam T. <ad...@fi...>]

Oh, come on, lets not get in a flame war here.  Despite all the bad feels
about microsoft, there are a LOT of companies that develop on its platform.
To simply disregard their input at all is silly.  If you stop caring about
the needs of your customers, you end up exactly like M$, don't you?

Adam

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Wagner, Victor [SMTP:VW...@se...]
> Sent:	Friday, November 09, 2001 7:48 AM
> To:	'Christian Ratliff'; 'dox...@li...'
> Subject:	RE: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style
> 
> Poor management decisions on the part of  your company is no reason to
> risk
> breaking what is a GREAT tool for the rest of us.  If you're so proud of
> being a "Microsoft shop" ask THEN for THEIR automatic documentation tool.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Ratliff [mailto:cra...@de...]
> Sent: Friday, 2001 November 09 06:05
> To: 'dox...@li...'
> Subject: RE: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style
> 
> 
> Dimitri,
> 
>   What can I do to help get this patch in? If it is through some "style
> interface hook" mechanism, which Germar mentions, I am glad to offer
> whatever assistance I can.
>   As for Germar's political perspective, whatever! We are a Microsoft
> shop,
> and right now I just want to convince people to start auto generating
> documentation. The MSDN-style is my best chance to do that, since we are
> all
> familiar with that format.
> 
> christian
> 
> +-----+
> Christian Ratliff <cra...@de...>
> Sr. Technology Architect
> Core Libraries Group, DeLorme
> "This is the very perfection of man, 
>   to find out his own imperfections" -  St. Augustine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dimitri van Heesch [mailto:di...@st...] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 4:25 PM
> To: dox...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 08:25:21AM -0500, Christian Ratliff wrote:
> > Hello all,
> > 
> >   Has the MSDN style been merged into the code base in CVS yet? We use 
> > that style for all of our auto-generated documentation now, but I 
> > would prefer to move to a more recent release than 1.2.6. I have been 
> > monitoring the recent change logs, but perhaps I overlooked its 
> > mention.
> > 
> 
> I'm still investigating the impact of Alexandr Chelpanov's patch. 
> It is quite huge, still has rough edges, and introduces a lot of
> conditional
> 
> code (mostly only for html, and even some IE specific stuff), so from a 
> test/maintenance point of view I am not overly enthousiastic yet.
> 
> From a user point of view I can understand the MSDN style feature is nice 
> though.
> 
> Regards,
>   Dimitri
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Doxygen-users mailing list
> Dox...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-users
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Doxygen-users mailing list
> Dox...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-users
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Doxygen-users mailing list
> Dox...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-users

RE: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style

[Adam T. <ad...@fi...>]

Again, for my 2 cents, this sounds good.  The trick is the get the HTML
generator fixes after such a split back into the MSDN style code.

Adam

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Prikryl,Petr [SMTP:PRI...@sk...]
> Sent:	Friday, November 09, 2001 2:33 AM
> To:	dox...@li...
> Subject:	RE: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Dimitri wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 08:25:21AM -0500, Christian Ratliff wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >   Has the MSDN style been merged into the code base in CVS yet? We use
> that
> > > style for all of our auto-generated documentation now, but I would
> prefer to
> > > move to a more recent release than 1.2.6. I have been monitoring the
> recent
> > > change logs, but perhaps I overlooked its mention.
> > 
> > I'm still investigating the impact of Alexandr Chelpanov's patch. 
> > It is quite huge, still has rough edges, and introduces a lot of
> conditional 
> > code (mostly only for html, and even some IE specific stuff), so from a 
> > test/maintenance point of view I am not overly enthousiastic yet.
> 
> In my opinion, MSDN Style will always be IE specific, and 
> it will probably be focused mainly on HTML.  If MSDN Style 
> were to be merged into the official doxygen, wouldn't
> it be easier to introduce it via another, MSDN-specific 
> HTML-generator?  I think that this way it could be separated
> from the rest of doxygen, and it could possibly be conditionally 
> excluded during compilation for the environment where MSDN Style
> does not make sense.  
> 
> Microsoft likes to make changes and it does not like to follow
> standards, sometimes.  Too tight integration of MSDN Style 
> could spoil the doxygen core later.
> 
> Regards,
>   Petr
> 
> 
> -- 
> Petr Prikryl, SKIL, spol. s r.o., pri...@sk...
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Doxygen-users mailing list
> Dox...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-users

RE: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style

[Adam T. <ad...@fi...>]

For my two cents, I certainly see value in the MSDN look.  The compnay I
work for has adopted Doxygen as its documentation standard.  It certainly
would be nice if I could convince them to use the DevStudio help integrator:
I'm lazy and F1 on internal classes and functions would be nice.  MSDN look
would go a long way towards that goal.  The main problem I've have with
doxygen and CHM, is that the index doesn't quite seem right.  Maybe its just
me, but in my index, I get: Classname, with a subitem of the destructor, and
it was subitems of the rest of the functions.  Has anyone else seen that?

Adam

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Sten Darre [SMTP:sd...@ne...]
> Sent:	Friday, November 09, 2001 8:47 AM
> To:	dox...@li...
> Subject:	RE: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style
> 
> This might be a little out of thread, but I don't think MSDN-look-and-feel
> is going to make the difference as to '..to convince people..'.
> Since it might look allright - but it isn't a real Micro$oft-tool, hence
> they won't trust doxygen anyway.
> 
> They either just love it or hate it... no matter what layout is used -
> just
> my humble experince ;-)
> 
> Personally I think either layout is nice.
> 
> greets
> 
> sten
> 
> >   As for Germar's political perspective, whatever! We are a
> > Microsoft shop,
> > and right now I just want to convince people to start auto generating
> > documentation. The MSDN-style is my best chance to do that,
> > since we are all
> > familiar with that format.
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dox...@li...
> > [mailto:dox...@li...]On Behalf Of Wagner,
> > Victor
> > Sent: 09 November 2001 14:48
> > To: 'Christian Ratliff'; 'dox...@li...'
> > Subject: RE: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style
> >
> >
> > Poor management decisions on the part of  your company is no
> > reason to risk
> > breaking what is a GREAT tool for the rest of us.  If you're
> > so proud of
> > being a "Microsoft shop" ask THEN for THEIR automatic
> > documentation tool.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christian Ratliff [mailto:cra...@de...]
> > Sent: Friday, 2001 November 09 06:05
> > To: 'dox...@li...'
> > Subject: RE: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style
> >
> >
> > Dimitri,
> >
> >   What can I do to help get this patch in? If it is through
> > some "style
> > interface hook" mechanism, which Germar mentions, I am glad to offer
> > whatever assistance I can.
> >   As for Germar's political perspective, whatever! We are a
> > Microsoft shop,
> > and right now I just want to convince people to start auto generating
> > documentation. The MSDN-style is my best chance to do that,
> > since we are all
> > familiar with that format.
> >
> > christian
> >
> > +-----+
> > Christian Ratliff <cra...@de...>
> > Sr. Technology Architect
> > Core Libraries Group, DeLorme
> > "This is the very perfection of man,
> >   to find out his own imperfections" -  St. Augustine
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dimitri van Heesch [mailto:di...@st...]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 4:25 PM
> > To: dox...@li...
> > Subject: Re: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 08:25:21AM -0500, Christian Ratliff wrote:
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > >   Has the MSDN style been merged into the code base in CVS
> > yet? We use
> > > that style for all of our auto-generated documentation now, but I
> > > would prefer to move to a more recent release than 1.2.6. I
> > have been
> > > monitoring the recent change logs, but perhaps I overlooked its
> > > mention.
> > >
> >
> > I'm still investigating the impact of Alexandr Chelpanov's patch.
> > It is quite huge, still has rough edges, and introduces a lot
> > of conditional
> >
> > code (mostly only for html, and even some IE specific stuff),
> > so from a
> > test/maintenance point of view I am not overly enthousiastic yet.
> >
> > >From a user point of view I can understand the MSDN style
> > feature is nice
> > though.
> >
> > Regards,
> >   Dimitri
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Doxygen-users mailing list
> > Dox...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-users
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Doxygen-users mailing list
> > Dox...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-users
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Doxygen-users mailing list
> > Dox...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-users
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Doxygen-users mailing list
> Dox...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-users

RE: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style

[Sten D. <sd...@ne...>]

This might be a little out of thread, but I don't think MSDN-look-and-feel
is going to make the difference as to '..to convince people..'.
Since it might look allright - but it isn't a real Micro$oft-tool, hence
they won't trust doxygen anyway.

They either just love it or hate it... no matter what layout is used - just
my humble experince ;-)

Personally I think either layout is nice.

greets

sten

>   As for Germar's political perspective, whatever! We are a
> Microsoft shop,
> and right now I just want to convince people to start auto generating
> documentation. The MSDN-style is my best chance to do that,
> since we are all
> familiar with that format.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: dox...@li...
> [mailto:dox...@li...]On Behalf Of Wagner,
> Victor
> Sent: 09 November 2001 14:48
> To: 'Christian Ratliff'; 'dox...@li...'
> Subject: RE: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style
>
>
> Poor management decisions on the part of  your company is no
> reason to risk
> breaking what is a GREAT tool for the rest of us.  If you're
> so proud of
> being a "Microsoft shop" ask THEN for THEIR automatic
> documentation tool.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Ratliff [mailto:cra...@de...]
> Sent: Friday, 2001 November 09 06:05
> To: 'dox...@li...'
> Subject: RE: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style
>
>
> Dimitri,
>
>   What can I do to help get this patch in? If it is through
> some "style
> interface hook" mechanism, which Germar mentions, I am glad to offer
> whatever assistance I can.
>   As for Germar's political perspective, whatever! We are a
> Microsoft shop,
> and right now I just want to convince people to start auto generating
> documentation. The MSDN-style is my best chance to do that,
> since we are all
> familiar with that format.
>
> christian
>
> +-----+
> Christian Ratliff <cra...@de...>
> Sr. Technology Architect
> Core Libraries Group, DeLorme
> "This is the very perfection of man,
>   to find out his own imperfections" -  St. Augustine
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dimitri van Heesch [mailto:di...@st...]
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 4:25 PM
> To: dox...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 08:25:21AM -0500, Christian Ratliff wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> >   Has the MSDN style been merged into the code base in CVS
> yet? We use
> > that style for all of our auto-generated documentation now, but I
> > would prefer to move to a more recent release than 1.2.6. I
> have been
> > monitoring the recent change logs, but perhaps I overlooked its
> > mention.
> >
>
> I'm still investigating the impact of Alexandr Chelpanov's patch.
> It is quite huge, still has rough edges, and introduces a lot
> of conditional
>
> code (mostly only for html, and even some IE specific stuff),
> so from a
> test/maintenance point of view I am not overly enthousiastic yet.
>
> >From a user point of view I can understand the MSDN style
> feature is nice
> though.
>
> Regards,
>   Dimitri
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Doxygen-users mailing list
> Dox...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> Doxygen-users mailing list
> Dox...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> Doxygen-users mailing list
> Dox...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-users
>

RE: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style

[Wagner, V. <VW...@se...>]

Poor management decisions on the part of  your company is no reason to risk
breaking what is a GREAT tool for the rest of us.  If you're so proud of
being a "Microsoft shop" ask THEN for THEIR automatic documentation tool.

-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Ratliff [mailto:cra...@de...]
Sent: Friday, 2001 November 09 06:05
To: 'dox...@li...'
Subject: RE: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style


Dimitri,

  What can I do to help get this patch in? If it is through some "style
interface hook" mechanism, which Germar mentions, I am glad to offer
whatever assistance I can.
  As for Germar's political perspective, whatever! We are a Microsoft shop,
and right now I just want to convince people to start auto generating
documentation. The MSDN-style is my best chance to do that, since we are all
familiar with that format.

christian

+-----+
Christian Ratliff <cra...@de...>
Sr. Technology Architect
Core Libraries Group, DeLorme
"This is the very perfection of man, 
  to find out his own imperfections" -  St. Augustine




-----Original Message-----
From: Dimitri van Heesch [mailto:di...@st...] 
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 4:25 PM
To: dox...@li...
Subject: Re: [Doxygen-users] MSDN Style


On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 08:25:21AM -0500, Christian Ratliff wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
>   Has the MSDN style been merged into the code base in CVS yet? We use 
> that style for all of our auto-generated documentation now, but I 
> would prefer to move to a more recent release than 1.2.6. I have been 
> monitoring the recent change logs, but perhaps I overlooked its 
> mention.
> 

I'm still investigating the impact of Alexandr Chelpanov's patch. 
It is quite huge, still has rough edges, and introduces a lot of conditional

code (mostly only for html, and even some IE specific stuff), so from a 
test/maintenance point of view I am not overly enthousiastic yet.

From a user point of view I can understand the MSDN style feature is nice 
though.

Regards,
  Dimitri


_______________________________________________
Doxygen-users mailing list
Dox...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-users

_______________________________________________
Doxygen-users mailing list
Dox...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-users