Mon Nov 27 15:01:00 GMT 2000
Phil Edwards <email@example.com> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 10:26:01PM -0800, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
[ snip ]
> > Continuing in this ranting mode, I'd also like to see the doxygen
> > bits live inside a docs subdir, and not necessarily a
> > configure-time option. I'd rather see a special makefile rule to
> > build the enhanced documentation than a configure time
> > option. Let's face it: re-configuring for documentation, even
> > 'enhanced documentation' is a complete nightmare.
> > People who then want the enhanced documentation can build it:
> > people who don't care don't have to waste cycles generating it.
> "make doxy"? All we'd need to do is test that a doxygen binary is
> available somewhere, and of a sufficiently recent version. Rich,
> what version are we using?
The version I have installed here is 1.2.3. This sounds like a good
idea to me too, especially given Gaby's comments. I'm wondering
whether in fact we can devise a system whereby those who want
internals documentation can invoke Doxygen on the source tree, whereas
those who want a simple user doc set can make do with far less
I still like the idea of using Doxygen for the ability to seamlessly
generate HTML, Texinfo, manpages etc., even if we are not going too
deep into the source. I'm preparing a couple of examples today of a
revised format, which if I have enough time I'll post.
I really, *really* don't want to cause any trouble with all this. If
it's going to detract from getting V3 out on time then let's not do it.
More information about the Libstdc++