Dimitri / Joe
Are the CR's (carriage returns) that was given in the example
meaningful ?
If so then this is not the format that doxygen produces in version
1.2.8.1 .
Joe's Example
> return_type
> function_name(
> argument_type1 argument_name1,
> argument_type2 argument_name2)
>
I'm using doxygen 1.2.8.1 and the sort of HTML format for class
members I'm getting is ...
<tr>
<td >RETURN_TYPE</td>
<td>METHOD_NAME (ARGUMENT_1, ARGUMENT_2)</td>
</tr>
If the CR's in the example Joe gave were meaningful then perhaps Joe is
suggesting something where the args are in separate cells on different
rows in the HTML table ie a format more like ....
<tr>
<td>RETURN_TYPE</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>METHOD_NAME</td>
<td>(ARGUMENT_1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td>ARGUMENT_2)</td>
</tr>
I have the same problem as Joe (ie "rather long function names and
argument types") and the 1.2.1.8 format of HTML documentation as shown
above is pretty unreadable.
Joe's suggestion might help us with our common specific problem however
this mail chain make me wonder if it would be preferable to have a more
general solution - one that would allow personalisation of the
formatting algorithm by for example an optional runtime plugin (ie on
unix a .so file or NT would use a .dll file - dunno what other
platforms offer for this sort of thing). This approach might help avoid
a proliferation of compiler and runtime switches for other formats that
users might wish to define.
JL
On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 12:32:57PM -0500, joe bester wrote:
> Dimitri,
>
> I've done some work to customize the output of doxygen to match our
project's
> web design, and coding standard. Much of this has been accomplished
via style
> sheets, but there some things, such as the format of function
signatures have
> been necessary to handle as source code modifications.
>
> For example, we prefer to have functions displayed like this:
>
> return_type
> function_name(
> argument_type1 argument_name1,
> argument_type2 argument_name2)
>
> Rather than doxygen's default
>
> return_type function_name(argument_type1 argument_name1,
argument_type2,
> argument_name2)
For HTML doxygen already produces the former output (or not?) so I
guess your patch is for fixing the other output format(s).
>
> This is mostly because we tend to have rather long function
> names and argument types.
>
> If I were to submit a patch to do this sort of formattting, would it
be
> accepted? Perhaps if I wrapped it in a configuration option?
Yes, please sent it and I'll see if I make it optional or not.
Regards,
Dimitri
Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com
This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you
should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free
as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed,
arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents
of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If
verification is required please request a hard-copy version. This
message is provided for informational purposes and should not be
construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or
related financial instruments.
|
