Re: Doxygen or gtk-doc?

[Damon Chaplin <damon karuna uklinux net>]

On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 21:15, Enrique Arizon Benito wrote:
> Hi, I was looking for an automated tool to document gtk+ source code. I 
> was thinking on Doxygen, similar to the JavaDoc I'm used to, but 
> searching on the net I found gtk-doc looks to be the prefered tool to 
> document gtk projects. Unfortunately the gtk-doc on itself looks to be 
> bad documented (I just found some man pages on the net and a few short 
> examples to use in Makefile.in. Even RedHat 9 is preinstaled with an old 
> gtk-doc version with no man pages). On the opposite the Doxygen project 
> is well known on the GNU world and offers me great confidence.
>   That's not to say that I consider gtk-doc to be bad. I just heard of 
> it a few days ago, I'm not used to it and I've found no docs. with the 
> named exceptions. Can someone guide me to choose one of those tools?. 
> What advantages gtk-doc offers over Doxygen when the source is gtk+ code 
> (plain C, not C++)?

gtk-doc uses GTK+ introspection facilities to help document signals and
object properties. But is is a pain to set up and use.


>   Another doubt arise when I see the http://cvs.gnome.org. While it now 
> offers just LXR and Bonsai front-end to the code, is it planned to offer 
> a third gtk-doc/Doxygen/... front-end in a future?.

Several of the docs are available on http://developer.gnome.org.

Damon