Re: RFC: gtk-doc and gobject introspection
- From: Luc Pionchon <pionchon luc gmail com>
- To: Stefan Kost <ensonic hora-obscura de>
- Cc: desktop-devel-list <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: RFC: gtk-doc and gobject introspection
- Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 20:06:10 +0300
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 12:28, Stefan Kost <ensonic hora-obscura de>
One thing we ned to agree on the community is that do we want all our
On 08/08/11 17:10, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 14:27, Stefan Kost <ensonic hora-obscura de
> For Python, we are extending the API that is provided through g-i via
> "overrides": Python modules that add API on top. So part of the
> sources for the Python API are outside the C library module (right now
> inside pyobject, one day should be split out).
api-docs look alike or do we want python docs look like other python
docs etc. In the later case I don't see much things that gtk-doc can
help here with.
I think that, at least, they should be all branded the same way.
(logo, font, header, footer, color scheme, etc.)
Then I would tend to think that, given one language, the developer would like to have all documentation organized the same way (so generated by the same tool)
What do you think?
If nobody minds that gtk-doc will need to depend on a perl-xml parser,
> I was expecting that g-ir-parser would be able to put in the .gir
> files all the information that gtk-doc requires, being able to drop
> the overlapping code in gtk-doc that parses the sources and thus
> having gtk-doc using .gir files as input.
that could be done in the long term. But as I tried to docuemtn, there
is still information that is not in the gir files (like the doc
structure). This can be addressed though.
I just hope that this would not complicate builds, as then gtk-doc would
> Is that not realistic by some reason?
depend on gir files and not all projects that use gtkdoc might want to
use gobject introspection.
] [Thread Prev