Re: [pygccxml-development] Updated status

[Roman Y. <rom...@gm...>]

On 3/6/06, Allen Bierbaum <al...@vr...> wrote:
I started to use epydoc for pygccxml. My approach was next:

For epydoc generated documentation I used epytext. I had some problems
with using rest. For manuals, I meen arcticles, tutorials, introduction, I =
use
docutils.

If you go to pygccxml\docs or pyplusplus\docs you will find few *.rest file=
s.
Also you will find script that builds documentation.

This is not all. source directory, root directory of both projects, contain=
s
release_builder.py file. It contains description of process how to build se=
tup.
Now it is broken, but it will take only few hours to fix it.

> >
> >> Does this seem like a good direction for documentation?  I know we
> >> can document classes and methods using this, do we want to document
> >> the usage of the modules like this as well?  (it is supported but do
> >> we want that type of documentation in the code?)
> >
> >
> > Well, I guess a short usage information in the module or class doc
> > string doesn't do any harm. But I guess as there is a dedicated "docs"
> > directory already existing in pyplusplus this would probably be a
> > better place for adding any tutorial/introduction style thing. But I
> > leave that up to Roman how he wants the documentation to be organized.

As much as I hate automatically generated documentation I think that I
don't have choice.
To many classes that should be described, that actually is a set of propert=
ies.
I think we will continue to use this mix, but I am open for suggestions.
I don't have strong opinion on this.

> Agreed.  I will go in whatever direction you both think is best.

Just take a look on docs folders.

> -Allen
>
>


--
Roman Yakovenko
C++ Python language binding
http://www.language-binding.net/