This does indeed look cool! GNUstep does eat it's own dogfood in the sense that autogsdoc is written using objective c and the cocoa apis.
The same issue with moving to doxygen presents itself in this case. There is an enormous amount of code to change.
But this is a better suggestion, in my opinion, than doxygen. I, personally, don't like doxygens output.
On Thursday, September 22, 2011, Thomas Davie <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On 21 Sep 2011, at 22:52, Riccardo Mottola wrote: > >> Hi >>> >>> And the reason I brought this up is because I'm starting to document corebase. Seeing as I'm starting from scratch I'm having a serious look at which doc generator to use. It would probably be a quite large effort move all of current gnustep documentation to doxygen and probably something that wouldn't happen overnight, as you suggest.
>> Well, i also think that projects gravitating around gnustep.org should use all the same document generator. Thus I think using autogsdoc is a good thing for other projects too and that is what I use and recommend for all GAP projects.
>> >> it's a bit like most people use javadoc with java. It's the the standard one. > > Just a heads up, given the scope of gnustep, if it were to change to a different documentation tool, appledoc might be a sane one to consider. It uses doxygen style comments, but produces much nicer (and more apple documentation like) output:
> > http://www.gentlebytes.com/home/appledocapp/ > > It's also written in Obj-C and Cocoa, so if GNUstep could eat this dog food it might be a nice flag to fly.
> > Bob > _______________________________________________ > Discuss-gnustep mailing list > address@hidden > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep