Re: `javadoc` for c++

"Matt Timmermans" <>
30 Oct 1998 13:08:32 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[4 earlier articles]
Re: `javadoc` for c++ (1998-10-17)
Re: `javadoc` for c++ Marko.Makela@HUT.FI (Marko =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E4kel=E4?=) (1998-10-17)
Re: `javadoc` for c++ (1998-10-17)
Re: `javadoc` for c++ (Bruce Dawson) (1998-10-17)
Re: `javadoc` for c++ (Jerry Leichter) (1998-10-17)
Re: `javadoc` for c++ (John Carter) (1998-10-22)
Re: `javadoc` for c++ (Matt Timmermans) (1998-10-30)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "Matt Timmermans" <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 30 Oct 1998 13:08:32 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 98-10-079 98-10-132
Keywords: tools, C++

>On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Marcus Rohrmoser wrote:
>Mix the C++ function declarations, documentation and implementation in
>one file. Mark it up in XML. (See of info on XML)
>Run it through James Clark's nsgmls to validate and parse the
>XML. Feed that output into a wee perl scriptie from which flows a whole
>bunch of streams.
>1) The class interface (.h file)
>2) The class implementation (.cc file)
>3) The online documentation. (.html file)
>4) The dead tree documentation (.tex file)

Uhhmm.... And what is the C++ for, exactly? Wouldn't we just call
the XML language CodeML and compile it to executable code?

This sort of thing pops up every now and then in SGMLland, and it's
almost always a bad idea. The syntax of a programming language like
C++ is designed to statisfy many requirements, including efficiency,
expressivity, familiarity, readability, and applicability to the
problem domain. Pick a function... quicksort, say... and write it in
CodeML (remember that you have to be able to extract adequate
documentation from this), and it will be clear why no SGML processing
language uses an SGML-based syntax.

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.