SPUG:Re: Python and Doxygen

[Michael R. Wolf]

Joe Slagel <slagel at geospiza.com> writes:

> Geoffrey & Kristin Grosenbach wrote:
> 
> > > Python even comes with a command to load a module and assemble all the
> > > doc
> > > strings from all the objects into something neat -- much like C++ and
> > > doxygen. Compare this with having to assemble the documentation from
> > > scratch
> > > with perldoc. This saves a lot of typing if you want to go in later and
> > > add
> > > or clean up the documentation. You won't have to write out the
> > > parameters to
> > > the function, the base classes of your class, or anything like that.
> >
> > It is downright embarrassing that Perl claims to be the mother of all
> > parsing languages, and yet cannot come up with a decent way to parse
> > it's own code (yes, I know this is part of the purpose of Perl6). I've
> > worked with doxygen and JavaDoc, and I would greatly benefit from such a
> > system for Perl. In fact, I was talking with Tim about this at Colin's
> > party.
> 
> Here at Geospiza, I have the same philosphy and problem with perl.  We've
> actually had someone working on developing something for ourselves, but
> we've really been thinking about open sourcing it.    The program we're
> working on understands the difference between perl classes and cgi scripts,
> uses a javadoc like style instead of POD, can output POD to use all of the
> pod2* utilities, and does introspection on the class.  This tool isn't quite
> finished yet, but if we can get some help on it we'll release it.
> 
> Another alternative is to use pdoc (http://pdoc.sourceforge.net/).

Has anyone used pdoc?  If so, could you tack it on to Geoff' POD talk
at an upcomoing SPUG meeting?  It sure would be great to have a few
different tools and styles.  I don't want to say TMTOWTDI because *I*
don't yet have one *good* way, even for a lame definition of "good".

-- 
Michael R. Wolf
    All mammals learn by playing!
        MichaelRunningWolf at att.net