-----Original Message----- From: boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-users- bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Edward Diener Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 2:56 PM To: boost-users@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [Review] Boost.Type Traits Extension by FredericBron
On 3/17/2011 10:10 AM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-users- bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of John Maddock Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 11:25 AM To: boost-users@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [Review] Boost.Type Traits Extension by FredericBron
* I note that is does not use an automated system like Doxygen of producing the reference information.
I would like to see the whole library Doxygen fully commented (ask if you think I can help) - replacing much of the current reference text.
Personally I wouldn't, sorry, but I'm still not completely sold on Doxygen :-(
Well I agree that it isn't the perfect tool.
(Doxygen gets confused with C++ and it's picky about linking comments to classes etc).
As a user I find the current 'hand-written' alternatives deeply unsatisfactory.
The bald synopsis just isn't good enough for the user.
The synopsis just gives the class and function name and parameters types.
But the user also needs to know what the parameters do, what the class or function does, what preconditions, what post conditions, what side effects, the "here be dragons" warnings, how to use it, examples ...
Most of this information *has* to be hand-written - whether in plain text, or in comments of some sort.
And it should all be in one place, not scattered.
Only the Quickbook-Doxygen reference section seems to do this - *provided the actual code is fully commented*.
I use doxygen, but there is nothing keeping a quickbook author from writing hand-written comments instead. So it is incorrect to claim that "Only the Quickbook-Doxygen reference section seems to do this".
Like you I still think doxygen is good enough since the long form of doxygen comments can be anything. But some people do find doxygen difficult, and I can understand that. I still think that good docs go beyond just using doxygen and need explanations in topics and good organization, and sometimes this is lacking in Boost docs. But John Maddock's documentation is always first-rate.
Indeed - the best - but I'm trying to encourage everyone to do as well, or better ;-) (I'm the nag behind AutoIndexing - to which challenge John has risen and conquered to my satisfaction - review upcoming). Just to be clear, I am NOT suggesting 'Standalone' Doxygen. I am suggesting generally using the Doxygen commands: \class \enum \file \brief \details \param \tparam \pre \post \returns \macro and perhaps \example \warning \remark \throws \see \typedef \var \version and even \deprecated ;-) Note that I said "Only the Quickbook-Doxygen reference section seems to get it should all be in one place, not scattered." It's the "one place, not scattered" that I think is the key here: this is what the Quickbook Doxygen Reference section does best. The discipline of thinking about which are suitable types of Doxygen comment listed above should discourage missing information (even if it means duplication). And the placing of documentation comments close to the code makes it easy to spot when these are out of step. As a user I still find that it is difficult to find even the things that I know exist (I remember that I wrote it!). Indexing is one aid, but it relies on the person producing the index, and in practice I find that searching a PDF is often the only way. Sorry to bang on about this, but too much documentation is written by authors who know too much, but is used by those who know too little :-) There are some good recent examples of improving Boost libraries in the pipeline. But IMO we still need to raise the bar for *user usability*. Paul (PS I have to admit that type_traits is not an ideal candidate for Doxygen comments on account of the considerable skulduggery with MACROS required to get it to work. So I can see that the effort in hiding this might be discouraging.)