FW: [Doxygen-users] Class collaboration

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

Sorry, I forget to hit 'reply all'

-----Original Message-----
From: Wagner, Victor 
Sent: Thursday, 2001 September 13 15:46
To: 'Dimitri van Heesch'
Subject: RE: [Doxygen-users] Class collaboration


IMO, it is far more important to know that
std::vector<Widget*> gorph;
is about Widget*s than std::vector.... mayhaps when you show the 'name' of
the var involved with the collaboration, you could show it simply by showing
the entire definition instead of just the name...or drop out the Class name
for consistency with my proposal in the 'nit' paragraph.
std::vector<*> gorph
and place it next to the 'arrow' pointing to Widget

NIT
BTW, minor nit (and not big enough to comment on until I'm commenting on
something closely related)
when we have the arrows in the collaboration graph, there is NO distinction
between member objects, member pointers to objects or member references to
objects (might be nice).... syntax for pointer and reference are easy (* and
& respectively adjacent to the name)

I'm immensely pleased with Doxygen, keep up the good work.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dimitri van Heesch [mailto:di...@st...]
Sent: Thursday, 2001 September 13 14:52
To: dox...@li...
Subject: Re: [Doxygen-users] Class collaboration


On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 12:51:43PM -0300, Anthony Yuen wrote:
> 
> 	Hi, I found another "problem" that "bugs" me (pun intended!).
> In the class collaboration diagram that is generated, I think something
> is not quite right.  Let me give an example:
> 
> 	class A { /* some methods */ };
> 
> 	class B { std::vector<A *> vec; };
> 
> 	I'm just using the std::vector as an example.  It can be any
> kind of (STL) container.  Even though this strongly suggests that
> class B somehow uses class A for "something" (in my case, B *does*
> make use of A, which is why B stores a vector of pointers to A),
> Doxygen does not conclude that there is collaboration between A and B.
> This can be extended to include the use of smart pointers stored
> in a container.
> 
> 	I'm interested to know if this is the intended behaviour.  If
> so, what is the reason behind?  If not, maybe this is a bug?

Currently this is intended behaviour, but I would like to hear what other 
people think about this. Should template arguments, such as in the example 
above, be visualised in collaboration diagrams? and if so, how? Does UML
cover these kind of relations?

Regards,
  Dimitri

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


This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential
and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained
herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the
sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or
hard copy format.
Thank you