Re: [Doxygen-users] Confusion regarding void
Brought to you by:
dimitri
From: Robert H. <he...@de...> - 2023-04-17 20:09:59
|
At Mon, 17 Apr 2023 22:00:21 +0200 Ren?_Staffen <r.s...@gm...> wrote: > > void is not a return type. > And even if void would be a type - there is no sense in just copy the > type onto the \return doc. > \return should document the semantic and not the syntax. The syntax is > allready documented by the code. > So no return type (void function) -> no return semantic to document -> > no \return command > The same is true for parameter. Right. One *can* say something like: "@returns nothing" for a function declared as returning void. One can say other things like "This function is for a [side] effect." There are various ways of expressing this. And yes, one should duplicate types in either the @param or @return commands, since Doxygen is already getting the typenames from the code itself and will document that in the function's prototype in the heading. > > > Am 17.04.2023 um 21:17 schrieb Pratyush Jayachandran: > > I'm documenting a project written in C. > > > > I couldn't find the rules for documenting functions that return void > > and/or have no parameters. > > > > By extension of other rules, should it be > > @return void > > and > > @param void > > > > Omitting them will result in the document showing just blank. > > > > Is it left on the user to decide? What is the industry standard? > > > > Regards, > > Pratyush > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > -- Robert Heller -- Cell: 413-658-7953 GV: 978-633-5364 Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services he...@de... -- Webhosting Services |