[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

How good is RDoc at documenting "raw" C++ code?

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

9/6/2006 1:01:00 AM

Just out of curiosity, if I have some fairly well constructed C++ code,
how good a job of document generation can I expect to get from RDoc with
no modifications to the code?
4 Answers

Eric Hodel

9/6/2006 7:34:00 AM

0

On Sep 5, 2006, at 8:50 PM, Yvon Thoraval wrote:

> Le 6 sept. 06 à 03:01, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky a écrit :
>
>> Just out of curiosity, if I have some fairly well constructed C++
>> code,
>> how good a job of document generation can I expect to get from
>> RDoc with
>> no modifications to the code?
>>
>
> /*
> * Sets alias path to alias_path
> */
> VALUE m_set_alias_path(VALUE self, VALUE alias_path) {
> rb_iv_set(self, "@alias_path", alias_path);
> }

Don't forget call-seq:

something like

call-seq:
some_object.alias_path(alias) -> alias

--
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.se...
This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant

http://trackmap.rob...

Suraj Kurapati

9/6/2006 4:38:00 PM

0

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, if I have some fairly well constructed C++ code,
> how good a job of document generation can I expect to get from RDoc with
> no modifications to the code?

Doxygen is better suited for this task:
http://www.stack.nl/~dimitr...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFE/vlZmV9O7RYnKMcRAug2AJ4szOAeYl8de1KPhZGs35Gdb+PJvwCdEXzE
HtgaQZUYOtCLXK+1nkjuxIw=
=RO8u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Suraj Kurapati

9/6/2006 5:19:00 PM

0

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Yvon Thoraval wrote:
> Le 6 sept. 06 � 18:38, Suraj N. Kurapati a �crit :
>> Doxygen is better suited for this task:
>> http://www.stack.nl/~dimitr...
>
> however, it seems to me, they are not speaking about ruby ???

Correct, they are not speaking of documenting Ruby. Instead, they
are speaking of using RDoc on C++ code.

Doxygen is better suited for C and C++.
RDoc is better suited for Ruby.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFE/wLomV9O7RYnKMcRAlhOAJ9OYrL+dqL7STvU2Cv7ziBAJv2DEgCfcArF
1OAY8YaWhyz9ngcZ2Ee10c4=
=cgK4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

9/7/2006 2:55:00 AM

0

Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:
> Yvon Thoraval wrote:
>>> Le 6 sept. 06 � 18:38, Suraj N. Kurapati a �crit :
>>>> Doxygen is better suited for this task:
>>>> http://www.stack.nl/~dimitr...
>>> however, it seems to me, they are not speaking about ruby ???
>
> Correct, they are not speaking of documenting Ruby. Instead, they
> are speaking of using RDoc on C++ code.
>
> Doxygen is better suited for C and C++.
> RDoc is better suited for Ruby.
Yeah ... I have Doxygen installed. I suspect RDoc will do just fine on
"vanilla C" code, but I also suspect C++ will break it.