On Thu, 2009-04-30 at 10:35 +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 30/04/2009 09:54, "Tim Post" <echo@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Defining the same thing again but with a different name just for purposes
> >> of
> >> documentation is pretty barking. I suppose it is perhaps worth a
> >> documentation comment in xs.h, but no more than that.
> > It is worth a mention... though it seems silly to send a patch that adds
> > comments. However, a patch that would convert the comments in xs to
> > doxygen format seems more useful, with the appropriate grouping, shorts,
> > etc.
> > How receptive would you be to that?
> I don't have a strong opinion. You can go wild on that if you like, assuming
> noone else hates doxygen format for any reason. I added a limits-related
> comment to xs.h by the way.
Well, since we have doxygen in the build, and the generated html docs
are so easy to read .. seems sort of silly not to make it uniform :)
If nobody replies with a resounding PLEASE NO, I'll go ahead and do
it .. libxc needs some comment love anyway.
It is very frustrating and difficult for people to write apps that work
with Xen using the shipped (or wiki) documentation. All too often,
what's on the wiki is not in step with unstable, so each new release is
like an easter egg hunt.
I also have some autoconf macros that I'll post to help stop breakage
due to structures shifting members. from the earlier days of v3 (but
still in use).
Xen-devel mailing list