Overview
Examples
Screenshots
Comparisons
Applications
Download
Documentation
Tutorials
Bazaar
Status & Roadmap
FAQ
Authors & License
Forums
Funding Ultimate++
Search on this site
Search in forums












SourceForge.net Logo
Home » Developing U++ » U++ Developers corner » Are there any plans to convert U++ comments to format as DOXYGEN / JAVADOC?
Are there any plans to convert U++ comments to format as DOXYGEN / JAVADOC? [message #47028] Sun, 13 November 2016 12:51 Go to next message
sergeynikitin is currently offline  sergeynikitin
Messages: 748
Registered: January 2008
Location: Moscow, Russia
Contributor

Are there are any plans to make saving and reading U++ comments as DOXYGEN / JAVADOC standard?

Like this:
/**
 * @brief sum - Make sum
 * @param a - first operand
 * @param b - second operand
 * @return sum of a and b
 */
int sum (int a, int b) {
    return a + b;
}

It's may be automatically processed by DOXYGEN and produce result as analytic site with code + comments + dependencies.

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


SergeyNikitin<U++>( linux, wine )
{
    under( Ubuntu || Debian || Raspbian );
}
Re: Are there any plans to convert U++ comments to format as DOXYGEN / JAVADOC? [message #47029 is a reply to message #47028] Sun, 13 November 2016 17:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Klugier is currently offline  Klugier
Messages: 1077
Registered: September 2012
Location: Poland, Kraków
Senior Contributor
Hello,

I think u++ will never move for current approach called Topic++ to solution like doxygen/javadoc. For me current solution is much better, because you don't need to write this fancy comments in your code. I think for people outside U++ it can be treated as not standard, but it is powerfull tool - probably needs several improvements. Don't take me wrong - T++ has got production status.

I think doxygen can be easily integrated with TheIDE by simply using Esc for scripting. If something is not possible within Esc just export more by improving TheIDE esc integration. I am aware that it will not point to U++ classes, but for your project this integration should be possible. Such script can be easily distributed through bazzar.

Sincerely,
Klugier


U++ - one framework to rule them all.

[Updated on: Sun, 13 November 2016 17:12]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Are there any plans to convert U++ comments to format as DOXYGEN / JAVADOC? [message #47031 is a reply to message #47029] Sun, 13 November 2016 23:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sergeynikitin is currently offline  sergeynikitin
Messages: 748
Registered: January 2008
Location: Moscow, Russia
Contributor

Klugier wrote on Sun, 13 November 2016 19:10
Hello,
I think u++ will never move for current approach called Topic++ to solution like doxygen/javadoc. For me current solution is much better, because you don't need to write this fancy comments in your code. I think for people outside U++ it can be treated as not standard, but it is powerfull tool - probably needs several improvements. Don't take me wrong - T++ has got production status.


Yes! But We create Makefile and others for export project. And our topic++ comments & descriptions must be visible by editor outside from U++ environment.

This may become as stimulation for programmers comment out his code!


SergeyNikitin<U++>( linux, wine )
{
    under( Ubuntu || Debian || Raspbian );
}
Re: Are there any plans to convert U++ comments to format as DOXYGEN / JAVADOC? [message #47040 is a reply to message #47031] Fri, 18 November 2016 08:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 13984
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
sergeynikitin wrote on Sun, 13 November 2016 23:42
Klugier wrote on Sun, 13 November 2016 19:10
Hello,
I think u++ will never move for current approach called Topic++ to solution like doxygen/javadoc. For me current solution is much better, because you don't need to write this fancy comments in your code. I think for people outside U++ it can be treated as not standard, but it is powerfull tool - probably needs several improvements. Don't take me wrong - T++ has got production status.


Yes! But We create Makefile and others for export project. And our topic++ comments & descriptions must be visible by editor outside from U++ environment.


They are online, aren't they?

That said, I can imagine T++ -> doxygen export, but would have to be done by "Documentation at other places" (http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/manual/docblocks.html)

All that said, over years I have considered and rejected doxygen comments several times, generally because:

* it would bloat header files - I rather like to see inline method list 'uninterrupted'

* with T++, I can have single description of multiple related methods easily, like: http://www.ultimatepp.org/src$Core$CoWork$en-us.html.

* with T++, I have full power of richtext at hand - can add images, tables etc... easily

One disadvantage of T++ is that it would be hard to change formatting. E.g. parameter names in description will now have to stay red forever...

Re: Are there any plans to convert U++ comments to format as DOXYGEN / JAVADOC? [message #47042 is a reply to message #47040] Fri, 18 November 2016 08:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sergeynikitin is currently offline  sergeynikitin
Messages: 748
Registered: January 2008
Location: Moscow, Russia
Contributor

Hello!.

Main feature is ability to automatically generate html-portal of documented sources with graphical show dependences (or calls, or use variables, or ...) like this http:// xerces.apache.org/xerces-c/apiDocs-3/classDefaultHandler.htm l It can show diagrams of links in UML class diagrams language.

Currently there are no tools graphical display of the relationships between modules and classes in U++.

This whole portal (the link) works using JS, and has full functionality even on the local computer.

To build simply run the command doxygen. This command will build a portal of that type, and LaTeX documentation and the man pages files (relevant only for Linux). (Full list of formats here.

In the project configuration we define which formats to generate.

Doxygen can also automatically analyze and library functions.

Some time ago I pointed out Doxygen for the analysis of the program sources of Theide. Its very useful.



SergeyNikitin<U++>( linux, wine )
{
    under( Ubuntu || Debian || Raspbian );
}

[Updated on: Fri, 18 November 2016 08:57]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Are there any plans to convert U++ comments to format as DOXYGEN / JAVADOC? [message #47043 is a reply to message #47042] Fri, 18 November 2016 09:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 13984
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
You know, it is not like I do not know what doxygen is...Smile

So by all means, if you have time, T++ -> doxygen would be a nice addition. I guestimate it would take about 40 hours to develop.
Re: Are there any plans to convert U++ comments to format as DOXYGEN / JAVADOC? [message #47059 is a reply to message #47043] Thu, 24 November 2016 01:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sergeynikitin is currently offline  sergeynikitin
Messages: 748
Registered: January 2008
Location: Moscow, Russia
Contributor

Can you say where can I see current format of T++ documentation (best place)?
I'll try to write this addition December or after NY.


SergeyNikitin<U++>( linux, wine )
{
    under( Ubuntu || Debian || Raspbian );
}
Re: Are there any plans to convert U++ comments to format as DOXYGEN / JAVADOC? [message #47060 is a reply to message #47059] Thu, 24 November 2016 13:40 Go to previous message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 13984
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
I would say you can take most from T++ topics itself (it is really simple).

In the code, you can start with void AssistEditor::SyncAnnotationPopup.

Mirek
Previous Topic: Error C2280 with MSC15 and Uniq
Next Topic: Compile error on Fedora 25 x86_64
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Jun 13 16:53:53 CEST 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02086 seconds