Re: [Doxygen-users] robodoc/ autodoc syntax

[Bogdan I. <bo...@ne...>]

For me, the fact that doxygen supports the javadoc syntax is an important
advantage. I want to have the same syntax for commenting both Java and C++
code. While I've seen C++ code documented in countless ways, I've yet to
see Java code documented using something other than javadoc. Also, there
are several tools and development environments that let you edit javadoc
comments in a friendly editor, with HTML syntax highlighting, automatic
generation of the leading asterisks and of most tags, and so on. This can
make writing comments much easier.

I agree that robodoc's syntax makes the source comments more readable. I'm
not sure how flexible it is about additional formatting of the comments:
for example, can it generate formatted lists or tables, other than the
default ones? I haven't really used it, so this is only a comment, not a
critique. You'll have to decide the tradeoffs by yourself.

Cheers,
Bogdan



----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephan Stapel" <st...@sc...>
To: <dox...@li...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 7:39 AM
Subject: [Doxygen-users] robodoc/ autodoc syntax


> Hi everyone!
>
> As I'm still examining different documentation tools, I discovered a  --
at
> least for me -- huge advantage of Robodoc/ Autodoc: The syntax in which
you
> format your source code documentation is far better human-readable than
the
> doxygen/ javadoc syntax.
> So I would like to know how difficult it would be to introduce this
syntax
> to doxygen as well. Has anyone any comments on advantages/ disadvantages
of
> Robodoc/ Autodoc in comparison to Doxygen?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stephan
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Doxygen-users mailing list
> Dox...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-users