Re: [help-gengetopt] [feature request] Doxygen comments for parser files

[Andre Noll]

On 14:31, Lorenzo Bettini wrote:

> so you wouldn't comment static functions, right?

Yes, I don't use doxygen comments for static functions. If something
in a static function needs commenting, I use the "usual" comments
instead, these are ignored by doxygen. But of course that's only my
personal taste.

OTOH, there's also the EXTRACT_STATIC option of doxygen that skips
static functions entirely when set to "NO", so they don't show up
anywhere, documented or not.

> and for the main parser functions, would it be better to be commented on 
> the .h file or in the .c file?

AFAIK doxygen doesn't care. I prefer the .c file because I can look at
the code while writing the documentation. That's probably irrelevant
for automatically generated comments though ;)

> Moreover, the few times I used doxygen, I used to use the @param and 
> @return (as in javadoc), while from the sources on paraslash it looks 
> like \param and \return should be used?

Both variants are possible, there's no difference in functionality.

Doxygen is well documented, btw:

        http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/manual.html

Regards
Andre
-- 
The only person who always got his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature