[spud] doxygen

[Mark Shinwell]

On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 04:45:33PM +0000, Olly Betts wrote:
> I've a couple of reservations - such systems can lead to swathes of
> pointless documentation which just wastes people time when they try to read
> it.

True, perhaps accessor functions like this can be documented separately?
I don't know if doxygen supports anything like this...

> The other problem is that the code and documentation comments can drift
> apart if people aren't careful to update both together.  You sometimes find
> new parameters which aren't documented, or parameters documented which no
> longer exist.  But people are more likely to fail to update documentation in
> a separate file.

Indeed they are.  It's much easier to update a comment above a function
(and it's more likely to be useful there anyway than in a separate file).

Mark

-- 
Mark Shinwell -- http://mrs30.quns.cam.ac.uk -- Mark.Shinwell@cl.cam.ac.uk
Theory and Semantics Group, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory