Re: [Boost-users] Boost services

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:35 AM, OvermindDL1 wrote:

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Bo Jensen wrote:

...

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote:

...

Bo Jensen wrote:

...

I have a small business which uses boost quite  a lot, thanks for all the great code. I am missing some features at the moment. Is it either possible to donate to get some things done or does some qualified people offer such services for a fee ? More specifically I would like to see the doxygen integration being expanded.

Could you give some more details? In particular, are you looking into Boostbook improvements?

- Volodya

_______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users

It is actually very simple and would not take the right person very long I think, I just don't have the time or skills to do it the right way myself.

I need following features :

1) Fix bug with array support i.e int myarray[] and not int [] array (I said it was simple :-)).

What bug is this that you are talking about? "int[] array" is correct, "int array[]" is not?

Well that might be me, but I have never seen notation like "int[] arrayname" as a argument input for a function. I think it is more common to use "int arrayname[]".

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Bo Jensen wrote:

...

2) Have arguments output like this :

void somefunction(int one,                           int two,                           int three) and arguments should keep this order in detailed list.

i.e not like this

void somefunction(int one, int two, int three) where arguments later on is sorted in detailed list.

Good for doxygen work, but definitely not standard, and doxygen can still decorate those in the primary description without needing to expand them like that.

I just think it is easier to read if the detailed argument list with description follows the same order as the actually function. Doxygen can do this with a parameter, but it does seem to get lost in the conversion to boostbook.

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Bo Jensen wrote:

...

3) Add see also support 4) Add group support

Also good doxygen things, but is there really any need?  Boostbook should already describe the public interface.

Yes I think they are really needed. In my case I have large amount of functions, which can be grouped by what they do i.e "modifying", "read/write" etc. Each function has very related functions which does almost the same but in a different way, which can be linked with the "see also" command. This makes it a lot easier for the reader to find the needed information.

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Bo Jensen wrote:

...

5) add C# support (which is supported by doxygen).

Er, C# support?  That seems impossible as this is C++ and C++ is *vastly* more powerful then C#, boost uses just about everything in C++ that C# does not come anywhere near supporting, what support are you talking about?

Again, I know very little about the doxygen->boostbook conversion, I just thought that if doxygen can make a xml file with the parsed structures, then it is not that hard to make a function reference list from that. In my case I have to make API's for several languages i.e c++, c, c# and python. Would be nice to have the same kind of documentation style.

_______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users