Re: LilyPond C/C++ #include cleanup

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Andreas Scherer writes:

> Has anyone considered to apply Doxygen to the LilyPond sources?

See these threads

  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2004-03/msg00226.html
  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2004-04/msg00083.html

there were some good intentions, but not much has happened.

> I'm aware that the internal comments are not doxygen'erated,
> however, Doxygen is capable to analyze plain C/C++ codes and to
> generate at least rudimentary "documentation" in various output
> formats.

As Han-Wen said, a docstring mechanism would be preferrable, but
doxygen doc is better than nothing -- if it can offer some basic
quality.

> Now, when I click through the HTML "documentation" and look at the images of 
> the include graphs, I find that many "#include" directives are redundant,

Thanks for looking into this.

> If there is interest in this group for such an improvement of the C/C++ 
> sources of LilyPond, I would volunteer to make the necessary modifications, 
> i.e., to remove the superfluous #include directives, while guaranteeing the 
> correct compilability of the system.  Any comments?

That would be great.  Make sure to use latest CVS and send unified diffs,
(cvs diff -u).

Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org