X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DC739DC82A for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:31:16 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 06198-10 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:31:12 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mailbox.samurai.com (mailbox.samurai.com [205.207.28.82]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D7109DC85A for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:31:10 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (mailbox.samurai.com [205.207.28.82]) by mailbox.samurai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64943239455; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:31:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailbox.samurai.com ([205.207.28.82]) by localhost (mailbox.samurai.com [205.207.28.82]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 02329-01-6; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:31:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (d38-160-188.home1.cgocable.net [72.38.160.188]) by mailbox.samurai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49E5723952E; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:31:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: source documentation tool doxygen From: Neil Conway To: Andrew Dunstan Cc: thomas@tada.se, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, jgardner@jonathangardner.net In-Reply-To: <38611.68.143.134.146.1137419873.squirrel@www.dunslane.net> References: <43CB85A8.9080001@tada.se> <38611.68.143.134.146.1137419873.squirrel@www.dunslane.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:31:40 -0500 Message-Id: <1137436300.9145.78.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mailbox.samurai.com X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.113 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113] X-Spam-Score: 0.113 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200601/469 X-Sequence-Number: 78573 On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 07:57 -0600, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > I too have done this. But retrofitting Doxygen style comments to the > PostgreSQL source code would be a big undertaking. Maintaining it, which > would be another task for reviewers/committers, would also be a pain unless > there were some automated checking tool. I don't think it would be all that painful. There would be no need to convert the entire source tree to use proper Doxygen-style comments in one fell swoop: individual files and modules can be converted whenever anyone gets the inclination to do so. I don't think the maintenance burden would be very substantial, either. -Neil