[nathanpc]

Awesome idea! I'll experiment with it in my projects. Doxygen is horrible, and looking at your example I can see it's far superior than Doxygen.

[apaprocki]

That depends.. it would be more helpful to evaluate comparing to Doxygen if a more meaty C++ example was used. This is our std::vector implementation (below). The STL provides enough meat for any doc generator to chew on...

http://bloomberg.github.com/bsl/group__bslstl__vector.html

I'm no fan of Doxygen output, but it is used because it has proven to be the most robust for documenting complicated code.

edit: links

[jevinskie]

Wow, I am green with envy after looking at those docs! I wish the LLVM/Clang doxygen was that nice. You are lucky if you get any comments at all.

[wladimir]

Can you explain why you think that doxygen is horrible?

[nathanpc]

The HTML output.

[wladimir]

What is wrong with that?

[nathanpc]

It looks like shit.

[wladimir]

Did you know that the output can be customized in many ways, for example using CSS and templates? Many organizations use doxygen for their documentation, even though you wouldn't recognize it at first.

Also, whether the tool uses clang or a custom parser doesn't affect the HTML output in any way. I agree that using clang is interesting, but you seem to be depreciating Doxygen for all the wrong reasons.