Re: TexInfo -> Doxygen

[Ben Abbott]

On Jan 23, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Sean Young wrote:

> On 24/01/2011, at 1:45 PM, Ben Abbott wrote:
> 
>> On Jan 23, 2011, at 7:33 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
>> 
>>> On 23 January 2011 16:53, Sean Young <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Jordi has suggested that the current TexInfo documentation be moved
>>>> to Doxygen format inside the c++ files
>>> 
>>> Before someone kills me for suggesting to a newcomer that we drop
>>> TeXinfo, I didn't quite mean that. I only said that probably the
>>> incomplete documentation currently under doc/liboctave should probably
>>> be inlined into the C++ sources with Doxygen. We already publish
>>> bare-bones Doxygen output in octave.sf.net, and having the docstrings
>>> next to the source will probably motivate us to write more (and also
>>> get rid of my personal beef with "undocumented internal function").
>>> 
>>> - Jordi G. H.
>> 
>> I've never used Doxygen, but I'd like the idea of a systemic approach to 
>> documenting how the source code works.
>> 
>> Which is entirely different that what the texinfo stuff does. Which is to 
>> document Octave's syntax. 
>> 
>> is the idea to have the texinfo stuff present in the doxygen output?
>> 
>> Ben
> 
> Hi Ben,
> 
> One thing I forgot to mention is that this is only going to be for liboctave 
> (which makes sense for C++ sources I guess) - doxygen has a syntax akin to 
> that of TeX, but we'd still need to do some minimal translation of the 
> TexInfo.

Do I understand that the intent is that the Texinfo documentation stays as it 
is, and will be translated so that it may be used by Doxygen as well?

Ben 

p.s. minor point of mail-list etiquette, please respond below so that those 
arriving late can easily follow along. Thanks.