[Development] RFC: The Future of QDoc

[Andre Somers]

Op 10-2-2012 8:07, Andre Somers schreef:
> Op 9-2-2012 19:13, marius.storm-olsen at nokia.com schreef:
>> On 09/02/2012 10:33, ext Manuel Nickschas wrote:
>>> On Thursday 09 February 2012 15:36:09 ext Olivier Goffart wrote:
>>>>> I am working on QDoc part-time and we have been discussing some
>>>>> changes that we would like to implement to make qdoc more future
>>>>> proof. I have created a short list of the things we would like to
>>>>> do: http://developer.qt.nokia.com/wiki/Category:Tools::QDoc
>>>>>
>>>>> It comes down to: Implement a new C++ parser, make qdoc more
>>>>> modular and be able to handle the Qt modules better with qdoc.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am wondering if anybody has any ideas about what he/she would
>>>>> like qdoc to do, or how qdoc should evolve?
>>>> Have you thought about using doxygen or any similar tool?
>>> Or at least make QDoc be able to parse doxygen-style comments (which
>>> also means it should not ignore headers, as documenting public API
>>> in a header file is much more common at least outside Qt than doing
>>> that in the implementation file...)
>> Qt puts the documentation in the sources since it's closer to the actual
>> code, and thus more likely to be maintained at the same time as the code
>> is changed. If the documentation is in another location, it's far more
>> likely to be "forgotten" when updates/changes to behavior is done in the
>> source code.
> That only goes for code that is actually *in* the cpp files. It does not
> hold for enums, flags, inline functions and typedefs, nor does it hold
> for the many cases where the code is actually in a private class and the
> implementation contains little more than a d->doSomething().
Oh, and that is not mentioning templates either...

André