Re: "Documentation by paper"

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:

| > | Maybe for you, but i find that incredibly difficult to read and parse
| > | compared to the original marked up version, let alone understand.
| >
| > I far much prefer Richard's version. Simple and clear to read. I've
| > tried to stay far away from the doxygen business in V3land.
| >
| 
| To each his own. For me, at least, it requires a few minutes of
| intense staring to try to understand Richard's version, but about 5
| seconds to understand the first version.
| 
| Maybe it's cause law school has screwed up my ability to read.

I have no idea whether that is the case or how law school can have
that impact.  

Oh, just to clear any misunderstanding, I'm also used to typesetting
tools like (La)TeX and I have been using them for more than a decade
to typeset scientific papers; but I find the whole machine-oriented
thingy awful to follow (that is why I much prefer Joris' TeXmacs).
The only reason I like (La)TeX is that it provides me with a far
better tool for typesetting in a constrained environment.  I do not
see such an advantage for the doxygen stuff in the case of documenting
C codes.  

Anyway, I spoke because someone wanted to know whether Kenner was the
only one against.  Other than that, I do not believe you're going to
convince right now ;-)

-- Gaby