license & copyright patch to MELT for dual GPLv3+ & GFDL1.2+

[Basile Starynkevitch]

On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 01:57:03PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> 
> >> Meanwhile, I think we should try to make use of the fact that RMS is
> >> permitting auto-generated reference documentation (which I have been
> >> instructed not to call a manual) using JavaDoc/Doxygen tools.  If we use
> >> those tools, and demonstrate their value, we're then in a stronger
> >> position to say how generation of actual manuals is important.
> 
> > What I don't understand is what is so special about Doxygen.
> 
> Basile, there's nothing special about Doxygen.  It's just an example of
> a tool that generates cross-reference information.  I think you can
> reasonably distinguish the kind of thing that comes out of JavaDoc or
> Doxygen from a manual.  If you don't know what kind of output JavaDoc
> and Doxygen produce, please go read about them for a while and look at
> some examples.


I did read many doxygen generated documentation, and in my eyes, the 
documentation generated by MELT is ofvery similar nature: also, the 
cross-reference, inheritance, etc.

The MELT generated documentation was heavily inspired by what Emacs & 
Doxygen are doing.

So I still don't understand why generating cross-reference documentation 
with Doxygen for C++ code is permitted, while generating cross-reference documentation witb ÂMELT for MELT code is prohibited.

Did *you* have a tiny look at the documentation of MELT generated by MELT?

http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/MELT%20tutorial?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=GCC-MELT--gcc-internals-snapshot.pdf

Cheers!

-- 
Basile STARYNKEVITCH         http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
*** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***