Re: Thoughts on doxygen for internal documentation

[law at redhat dot com]

In message <20030116180431.GA2997@tornado.toronto.redhat.com>, Diego Novillo wr
ites:
 >On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Jeff Law wrote:
 >
 >>  >Let me rephrase the question then.  Would it be OK to start
 >>  >documenting major functions and data structures with /** */
 >>  >instead of /* */?
 >>
 >> Same answer.  If /** is acceptable for the rest of the compiler
 >> proper, then I'd go with it on tree-ssa.  If it isn't acceptable,
 >> 
 >We are running around in circles.  You still have not given me
 >*your* opinion! :)
That would be because I don't have a personal opinion.  I feel no need
or desire to have an opinion about coding standards.  I just adapt
myself to whatever the standards are for the project I'm working on.

Meaning that I'm going to support the GNU standards for GCC since
GCC is part of the GNU project.

[ Now since most of the work I've done for the last 10 years has been
  on GNU stuff, my ability to read/write kernel-normal-form from my
  BSD days has diminished somewhat :-) ]

 >Yes, I know.  That's why I'm asking.  I need to gather opinions
 >on whether we should ammend the coding standards to request
 >comments starting with /** to make them more doxygen friendly.
 >
 >Would people in this list endorse such a change to the coding
 >standards?
 >
 >A meta question.  Is this the right forum to debate the issue?
 >If not, what is the process for making changes to the coding
 >standards?
This is a good a place to start as any.  If you want to change the
standards, I'd use this forum to gather arguments to support your
position and a "fan base", then take it up with the FSF.

jeff