> I believe that if we studying a simple syntax, we could even develop > something in HB same as Doxygen or same as tool that Qt uses to > generate the help files. > > Before launching the project hbQt here in the list, I exchanged some > ideas with Marcos Gambeta and I has send to him a project developed in > pure Harbor that (believe me) he used as a basis to develop the parser > in PHP that writing classes in Qt. > > If we develop a standard "comment format" we can develop something to > generate the help files from the sources in a new format, I know that > this is partly made with hbdoc but we have to consider whether it > really compensates pay for this or if we can do something ourselves > (improving what we already have or to develop something new based on > tools already on the market). > >>Probably even better would be if author (s) could collect money directly. > I have some ideas about this, because I had done some tests with > hbdoc, Doxygen, javadoc and phpdoc and maybe this can help, but as the > topic speaks about money (which I think is a sensitive issue), I > believe the authors should point in the direction we should go for > this.
Everything would be good which help to create a free (as a bird) documentation at the end. The only minor comment I'd make is that I don't like very much where documentation is put inline in source code. Docs and code have different licenses and the two are updated by different persons, driven by different schedules. If put together, it means that f.e. developers will all the time stumble into documentation which will either take time away from development if they attempt to update it, and/or will result in inconsistent documentation after these modification attempts. Reverse can be also true where sensitive source files are mistakenly modified by documentation authors. It also doesn't solve multilanguage / translation problem. All this came as a conclusion after working such mixed documentation in Harbour. So, IMO doc sources should be stored separately from code, but inside our repository. > [PS: But if I go for help to pay, particularly I would like the result > was released as LGPL or even CREATIVE COMMONS to help disseminate the > project.] 'Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported' is used for some parts of Harbour which are not code. It'd be good to stick with this or some other CC flavours. LGPL is for code, GFDL is the FSF answer to this problem, but CC seems better accepted and now it's compatible with GFDL for the most part and also accepted by FSF. Brgds, Viktor _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
