[cfe-dev] A new clang-based documentation tool

[Athos van Kralingen via cfe-dev]

Thanks for the heads up, but we were aware of those options and how far we could get with Doxygen itself. It being clang-based was not really the motivation behind the project; we just started fresh and Clang was by far the best option as a parser, hence we didn't simply opt for Doxygen or a modification thereof. The same goes for DoxyPress of course, as it is a fork of Doxygen, making it not much different. 

Our tool is a Doxygen replacement to us (and perhaps others eventually), but it is definitely very different in aspects such as output, configuration and with that, customization. We simply refer to Doxygen due to its seemingly dominant presence for creating c++ documentation.

Also, if all goes well, it should also be more feasible to integrate into build systems, which gives, especially us, some options for scaling more easily too. A not unwelcome addition I'd say. There's some things left to do before that, though, but we'll make sure to keep this up to date as development progresses.

- Athos

-----Original Message-----
From: Csaba Raduly [mailto:rcsaba at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 9:38 AM
To: Raphael Isemann <teemperor at gmail.com>
Cc: Athos van Kralingen <athos.vankralingen at guerrilla-games.com>; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] A new clang-based documentation tool

There's also Doxygen, which can also use clang libraries for parsing :)

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Raphael Isemann via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> By the way, there is a open-source project called DoxyPress which is 
> also a clang-based doxygen replacement:
> https://github.com/copperspice/doxypress
>
> - Raphael
>
> 2017-08-01 11:27 GMT+02:00 Athos van Kralingen via cfe-dev
> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>:
>> Hi there,
>>
>>
>>
>> I’d like to let you know that we’re currently working on a 
>> documentation tool as a replacement to Doxygen. It’s all still work 
>> in progress, but it’s getting to the point where it will be actually 
>> usable for projects. Compared to Doxygen, we’re trying to give some 
>> significant improvements with regard to the output and control 
>> thereof, as well as improve integration with build systems for 
>> incremental builds and distribution. Of course this is all using 
>> Clang behind the scenes. Within time, we will be open-sourcing it and 
>> will definitely need some hands to keep the project going, as well as to, for example, extend Clang’s Doxygen parser.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, before we get to that point, we are concerned with something 
>> slightly off topic: the name, of which the tool currently does not have one.
>> We had ClangDoc/clangdoc in mind, but we’re wondering about the 
>> general consensus of naming Clang-based tooling after Clang itself? 
>> Is there anything against that?
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Athos
>>
>>
>>
>> Junior Tools Programmer
>>
>> Guerrilla
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev



--
GCS a+ e++ d- C++ ULS$ L+$ !E- W++ P+++$ w++$ tv+ b++ DI D++ 5++ The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Life is complex, with real and imaginary parts.
"Ok, it boots. Which means it must be bug-free and perfect. " -- Linus Torvalds "People disagree with me. I just ignore them." -- Linus Torvalds