From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, thomas(at)tada(dot)se, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, jgardner(at)jonathangardner(dot)net |
Subject: | Re: source documentation tool doxygen |
Date: | 2006-01-16 18:51:38 |
Message-ID: | 10961.1137437498@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> I don't think it would be all that painful. There would be no need to
> convert the entire source tree to use proper Doxygen-style comments in
> one fell swoop: individual files and modules can be converted whenever
> anyone gets the inclination to do so. I don't think the maintenance
> burden would be very substantial, either.
In the previous go-round on this topic, I seem to recall some concern
about side-effects, to wit reducing the readability of the comments for
ordinary non-doxygen code browsing. I'd be quite against taking any
noticeable hit in that direction.
A quick look through the doxygen manual doesn't make it sound too
invasive, but I am worried about how well it will coexist with pgindent.
It seems both tools think they can dictate the meaning of the characters
immediately after /* of a comment block.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-01-16 18:52:16 | Re: Surrogate keys (Was: enums) |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2006-01-16 18:31:40 | Re: source documentation tool doxygen |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2006-01-16 18:59:29 | Re: PgFoundry Move |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2006-01-16 18:31:40 | Re: source documentation tool doxygen |