Speaking of documentation

[Niclas Eklund]

Hello!

Have anyoune looked att Doxygen?

http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/

Distributed under GNU General Public License.

Supports C++, Java, IDL (Corba, Microsoft and KDE-DCOP flavors) and C.
Would be rather nice to be able to use the same tool for all languages one
uses (I cannot, however, come up with a single reason for using any other
language than Erlang ;-).

I quote Doxygen's homepage:

"It can help you in three ways: 

    1.It can generate an on-line documentation browser (in HTML) and/or an
off-line reference manual (in  ) from a set of documented source files.
There is also support for generating output in RTF (MS-Word),
      Postscript, hyperlinked PDF, compressed HTML, and Unix man pages.
The documentation is extracted directly from the sources, which makes it
much easier to keep the documentation consistent with the source
      code. 
    2.Doxygen can be configured to extract the code structure from
undocumented source files. This can be very useful to quickly find your
way in large source distributions. The relations between the various
      elements are be visualized by means of include dependency graphs,
inheritance diagrams, and collaboration diagrams, which are all generated
automatically. 
    3.You can even `abuse' doxygen for creating normal documentation (as I
did for this manual). 

Doxygen is developed under Linux, but is set-up to be highly portable. As
a result, it runs on most other UNIX flavors as well. Furthermore, an
executable for Windows 9x/NT is also available."


/Nick



> Chris Pressey (cpressey@REDACTED) wrote:
>> Is there a supported "autodoc" facility for Erlang, where one can write
>> documentation embedded in comments in the code, which is then extracted
>> and processed into 'formal' documentation in HTML (or whatever)?
>> 
>> I've noticed some unexplained comment sentinels in various sources, but
>> I've also noticed that the documentation and code are in seperate files
>> for all of the library modules I've looked into so far.
>
>We are using a very simple in-house documentation tool that produces
>Latex documentation of the code.
>
>Maybe we should release this tool if you that it could serve as a basis
>for further improvement.
>
>I am also looking seriously at CCviewer: It might be great to integrate
>such a doc tool with Ulf Wiger's source code browser.
>
>I must dig deeper to see if/how this could be feasible.
>
>-- 
>Mickaël Rémond