Re: [Doxygen-users] Two strange things about Doxygen and my code

[Bostjan M. <cco...@gm...>]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Dimitri van Heesch <do...@gm...> wrote:
> Hi Bostjan,
>
>>>> And why does the VOID redefine not work?
>>>
>>> It appears that Doxygen's strategy for warning about undocumented
>>> parameters or return types just doesn't expect anyone to ever typedef
>>> any other type as "void", and thus doesn't bother to test whether the
>>> return type and/or sole parameter's type is _equivalent_ with "void",
>>> but rather just tests whether it _is_ "void".
>>>
>>> This can be considered a bug, or it can be considered a feature: If you
>>> do indeed want to indicate that your function does not return anything
>>> at all, then why by all means do you not simply use the keyword "void"
>>> (or leave the parameter list empty in case of C++)? On the other hand,
>>> there might be cases where you may want some function to take or return
>>> a parameter of a type that may or may not be configured to hold an
>>> actual value (like, say, a type representing an error code, which may be
>>> configured to be equivalent to "void" in an environment where other
>>> means of error signalling, like throwing an exception, is used).  In
>>> that case, you'd probably want Doxygen to warn you if you forget to
>>> document that return value or parameter, even if it _may_ be configured
>>> to be equivalent to "void" by default.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I agree that anything but "void" should be considered a different
>> type. What I meant is, why doesn't it work when I try to use Doxygen's
>> preprocessor to redefine "VOID" back  to "void". Surely it doesn't
>> preprocess *after* deciding if function has a return value /
>> parameters? If it's preprocessor replaced "VOID" with "void", why
>> doesn't it then see it as "void"?
>
> Did you check if the "VOID" macro is actually being replaced by "void", i.e.
> by using -d preprocessor option and looking at the output?
> If it isn't then make sure also MACRO_EXPANSION is set to YES.
>

Thank you for this. I went over whole config a couple of days ago, but
didn't remember that this should also be enabled. Now it replaced
correctly and there's no more warning.

As for the single line issue... it's not really a big deal, I'll just
be careful to doc everything and warnings won't be required.

Thanks again!