[Fwd: Patches]

--- Begin Message ---
Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Eric Lemings <eric b lemings lmco com> writes:
> >
> > Would anybody have problems with patches submitted to make gtk-doc more
> > compatible with javadoc, in terms of both functionality and
> > look-and-feel?
> >
> Yes, if it causes us headaches with having to migrate existing
> makefiles and docs or causes lots of code changes that could produce
> bugs. We'd rather spend time writing docs than fooling with
> gtk-doc. ;-)

I suppose I should have been more specific: "backward-compatible,
optional feature patches".

> Would rather see someone do a nice Javadoc-like replacement system,
> and then migrate to it once it's ready, rather than having a slow
> mutation in gtk-doc itself while we're trying to use it. i.e. make an
> unstable branch, don't hack gtk-doc itself at the moment.

So would I.  Seems like nobody has the time or inclination (myself
included) to develop such a system.  So I start with gtk-doc.

> Though I think Doxygen is pretty nice, honestly, if you're looking for
> a better system, and I'd even advocate using it if it didn't require
> Qt to be installed.

Interesting.  It even supports Javadoc-style comments.


--- End Message ---

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]