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

Athos van Kralingen via cfe-dev cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Aug 4 01:29:41 PDT 2017


Hi Chenwj,

That's good to know, thanks! We'd rather refrain from using Doxygen in the name though, Doxygen replacement should be read as: we are currently using Doxygen, but we will be using this instead because.  It's quite a different thing altogether, the only similarities would be that we intend to parse the same style (at least). 

We'll settle with clang-doc in that case. 

- Athos

-----Original Message-----
From: 陳韋任 [mailto:chenwj.cs97g at g2.nctu.edu.tw] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 11:46 PM
To: Athos van Kralingen <athos.vankralingen at guerrilla-games.com>
Cc: cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] A new clang-based documentation tool

Hi Athos,

  My impression is we usually name the tool with dash in between, like clang-diff, clang-format, ... etc.
IMHO, clang-doxygen will be good as it remind me it tends to replace doxygen.

Regards,
chenwj

2017-08-01 17:27 GMT+08:00 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
>



--
Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任)
Homepage: https://people.cs.nctu.edu.tw/~chenwj


More information about the cfe-dev mailing list