[Interest] why Qt document have no UML graph?

[Charley Bay]

>
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 05:46:23AM -0700, Charley Bay wrote:
> > I understand the Qt docs are created from a Doxygen-like "derivative",
>

 André Pönitz respondeth:

> qdoc.
>
> Calling it a "Doxygen-like 'derivative'" is a bit of a stretch,
> though, at least when accepting school-book style assumptions on
> linear, non-reversible time.
>
> Andre'
>
> PS: See http://rant.gulbrandsen.priv.no/udoc/history


Thanks for this -- good read.  Doxygen is one-of-four offshoots from the
original udoc/qdoc.

My mistake.

An aside, from the link:

Later, Dimitri developed doxygen in a direction away from qdoc. Whereas
> qdoc was aimed at generating good documentation with the least possible
> effort, doxygen was aimed at generating the best possible documentation for
> a given level of effort. That may sound similar, but the difference is
> profound. Doxygen will produce something even if there are *no* documentation
> blocks in the source; udoc will just spew helpful messages<http://aox.org/udoc/errors> in
> that case.
> At Trolltech, we never used doxygen.


<snip>,

I *totally* understand his assertion on that distinction.  We use lots of
Doxygen, but I must admit that I prefer the qdoc approach.

Also from the article, for the curious:

After a while, Trolltech grew to a point where we could think about
> spending time on a new, maintainable, version of qdoc. Finally Jasmin
> Blanchette did so in C++ when he started at Trolltech. His version was a
> great deal better than my perl monster. It was a relief to finally kill
> that perl.


(Thanks for the correction.)

--charley
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/attachments/20120209/583eca4c/attachment.html>