What do we all feel about agreeing on Doxygen for the documentation tool for the near future (i.e. next 12 months). I would further suggest that we elect to go for

    /** Blah Blah */

rather than

  /// Blah Blah

which will make it easy to change to JavaDoc, if anyone gets sufficiently motivated to write a D doclet.

Whatever convention we use now, it would be good to agree on one. If/when a D-documenting tool is specifically written, it will make the implementation simpler by having a small set of existing standards for which it will need to provide backwards compatibility.

I used Doxygen for the std.windows.registry module, and I'm doing so again with the std.io.recls one.

Thoughts?

Matthew

Matthew Wilson wrote:

>What do we all feel about agreeing on Doxygen for the documentation tool for
>the near future (i.e. next 12 months). I would further suggest that we elect
>to go for
>
>    /** Blah Blah */
>
>rather than
>
>  /// Blah Blah
>
>which will make it easy to change to JavaDoc, if anyone gets sufficiently
>motivated to write a D doclet.
>
>Whatever convention we use now, it would be good to agree on one. If/when a
>D-documenting tool is specifically written, it will make the implementation
>simpler by having a small set of existing standards for which it will need
>to provide backwards compatibility.
>
>I used Doxygen for the std.windows.registry module, and I'm doing so again
>with the std.io.recls one.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Matthew
>
>  
>
Sounds good. I can't wait to see it become part of an editor/D IDE.

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew-hat@-stlsoft-dot.-org> wrote in message news:bocd7f$1l7i$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> What do we all feel about agreeing on Doxygen for the documentation tool
for
> the near future (i.e. next 12 months).

I agree.

> I would further suggest that we elect
> to go for
>
>     /** Blah Blah */
>
> rather than
>
>   /// Blah Blah
>
> which will make it easy to change to JavaDoc, if anyone gets sufficiently motivated to write a D doclet.

Maybe I'm ignorant, but I don't see that JavaDoc is better than Doxygen in
any
way. Also, I like the Open Source nature of Doxygen. Maybe the filter you
made could be submitted to the central Doxygen repository? It would give
D support out of the box instead of downloading a D filter from somewhere
else.

Lars Ivar Igesund

> > which will make it easy to change to JavaDoc, if anyone gets
sufficiently
> > motivated to write a D doclet.
>
> Maybe I'm ignorant, but I don't see that JavaDoc is better than Doxygen in
> any
> way. Also, I like the Open Source nature of Doxygen. Maybe the filter you
> made could be submitted to the central Doxygen repository? It would give
> D support out of the box instead of downloading a D filter from somewhere
> else.

I wasn't suggesting it was. I have very little knowledge of JavaDoc beyond its basic use in Java itself. I was just giving an example.

Since I wrote that post, I tried to use /** */ in the std.recls port, and I found it too hard, so was about to recind this little nugget. :)

I like the idea of a Doxygen filter. Do you have a URL for writing Doxygen plug-ins? I've never got beyond the basic use of it

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew-hat@-stlsoft-dot.-org> wrote in message news:bocr92$2am6$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> I like the idea of a Doxygen filter. Do you have a URL for writing Doxygen plug-ins? I've never got beyond the basic use of it

I only know the doxygen website:

www.doxygen.org

There are very many users around the world, so I guess the information shouldn't be to hard to come by. At least it's probably easy to get help to find it :)

Lars Ivar Igesund

Matthew Wilson wrote:
> What do we all feel about agreeing on Doxygen for the documentation tool for
> the near future (i.e. next 12 months).

I agree.

 I would further suggest that we elect
> to go for
> 
>     /** Blah Blah */
> 
> rather than
> 
>   /// Blah Blah
> 
> which will make it easy to change to JavaDoc, if anyone gets sufficiently
> motivated to write a D doclet.

No point in making /** comment */ standard for JavaDoc's sake. There are many other features in Doxygen people will use that is not compatible with JavaDoc. Personally I like ///.

> Whatever convention we use now, it would be good to agree on one. If/when a
> D-documenting tool is specifically written, it will make the implementation
> simpler by having a small set of existing standards for which it will need
> to provide backwards compatibility.
> 
> I used Doxygen for the std.windows.registry module, and I'm doing so again
> with the std.io.recls one.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Matthew
> 
> 

In article <bociu2$1tns$1@digitaldaemon.com>, J Anderson says...
>
>Sounds good. I can't wait to see it become part of an editor/D IDE.

leds is open source, contributions are wellcome.

and more: leds is quite simple because the main jobs is
done by a ready available component: scintilla
(and is supported by the excelent DUI toolkit, if I may say so myself)

leds home page (Benji, where's the cdan?):

http://ca.geocities.com/leds_editor/index.html

Ant