Subject: Re: Doxygen generated documentation
To: None <>
From: =?euc-kr?B?wMzBvrz2?= <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 05/22/2005 23:51:50
I tend to agree with Thor Lancelot Simon. I have used doxygen for my 
Dowygen is good tool but it need source with *good comment of doxygen 
Doxygen format Commenting of NetBSD is not easy and is not valuable than 
If using doxygen is only for graphs, it's not so good idea.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rui Paulo" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 4:21 AM
Subject: Re: Doxygen generated documentation

> On 2005-05-21, Thor Lancelot Simon <> wrote:
>> On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 09:11:05AM +0000, Rui Paulo wrote:
>>> On 2005-05-21, Jan Schaumann <> wrote:
>>> > Hey, this is pretty cool!  I don't know doxygen, but this looks 
>>> > like
>>> > something we may want to get onto our website, no?
>>> I agree. I could handle it, if there's no one against it :)
>> I am strongly opposed to adding *even more* documentation formats to 
>> our
>> system.  I have also had some prior experience with doxygen and 
>> loathe it.
> Well, it's my first experience.. but what's the problem with doxygen, 
> in
> your opinion ? I'm not saying we should use doxygen to document code, 
> but
> it may help with #include's and call graphs. This is what I've done 
> and
> it didn't required any modifications to the code.
> Anyway, man pages pages are fine for documention function usage and 
> what they
> do.
> -- 
> Rui Paulo <>