This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: "Documentation by paper"
- From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- To: Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 04 13:01:32 EST
- Subject: Re: "Documentation by paper"
Paper documentation is nice as well, but the way to get both, and to
keep the code and documentation consistent, is to use doxygen-style
comments and use that to generate the documentation.
Agreed. I have no problems with having a *second* copy, as long as the
primary one is in the file and "doxygen-style" does't clutter up the
source and make it harder to read the comments.
I don't know anything about the annotations, but if it were a tradeoff
between making the source slightly less clean to get a secondary documention,
I'd vote *against* the secondary documention since it isn't nearly as
useful as a easy-to-read documentation in the source.