"Young, Michael" <Michael.Young@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > This is a reason that I personally don't like doxygen documentation. > > It isn't clearly separated into interface functions and internal > > functions. > > Do you know of a better tool? If so, I'm interested, because I have > "issues" with Doxygen, too - IMHO, it does have some "warts". However... > > AFAICT, the problem really isn't with Doxygen. How does C or C++ really > specify that a function is an "interface" vs. "internal"? Yes. The problem is that Doxygen doesn't force you to consider this. Writing documentation does. That is, my problem with Doxygen is a conceptual one: I don't think that annotating code is the right way to write documentation. Doxygen certainly has its uses. For example, it's useful within a project for people working on that project to see what functions are available and what they do. But it's not the same as documentation. For that purpose, at its best it's a tool which can be used to create the first version of the documentation. Ian
