Doxygen - is there a status?

[Derek Atkins]

Carsten,

Carsten Rinke <carsten.rinke at gmx.de> writes:

> John,
>
> actually I am in favor of Doxygen because then the design
> documentation and the implementation is put into one place, and it
> should be part of the designers work to maintain both, ideally in the
> same file. If using wiki, then you have to maintain two places. Not to
> forget the automated stuff that Doxygen is doing.

I think John's point is that there is a big difference between the
architecture/design descriptions and the API documentation.  The latter
most certainly can (and should) be done in doxygen, but John's point was
that the former might be better served in the wiki because it's easier
to edit and frankly the design doesn't change all that frequently
(whereas code/APIs can).

> And as a side effect you get browsable code.
>
> Is there / Has there been a discussion/decision about whether to use
> or not to use Doxygen?

I don't understand this question.  We already do use doxygen for the
developer API documentation.  See http://code.gnucash.org/docs/HEAD/ for
the output of the nightly docs build.

So what exactly are you asking here?

> Better stop me right away before I am running in the wrong direction ...
>
> Regs,
> Carsten

-derek
-- 
       Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
       Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board  (SIPB)
       URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/    PP-ASEL-IA     N1NWH
       warlord at MIT.EDU                        PGP key available