# How good is RDoc at documenting "raw" C++ code? **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [September 6, 2006, 3:08am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/how-good-is-rdoc-at-documenting-raw-c-code/67695 "2006-09-06T03:08:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![MSEdward\_SEdS\_Bora](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@MSEdward\_SEdS\_Bora](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/MSEdward_SEdS_Bora)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2006, 3:08am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/how-good-is-rdoc-at-documenting-raw-c-code/67695/1 "2006-09-06T03:08:56Z")
Just out of curiosity, if I have some fairly well constructed C++ code, how good a job of document generation can I expect to get from RDoc with no modifications to the code? ---
**Author:** ![MSEdward\_SEdS\_Bora](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@MSEdward\_SEdS\_Bora](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/MSEdward_SEdS_Bora)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2006, 6:01am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/how-good-is-rdoc-at-documenting-raw-c-code/67695/2 "2006-09-06T06:01:12Z")
Le 6 sept. 06 à 03:01, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky a écrit : > Just out of curiosity, if I have some fairly well constructed C++ > code, > how good a job of document generation can I expect to get from RDoc > with > no modifications to the code? see [http://thoraval.yvon.free.fr/RAliasFile/](http://thoraval.yvon.free.fr/RAliasFile/) for an example (still alpha), here is my C : // // RAliasFile.c // /\* - Resolve an alias file returning the path of alias target from - alias path. - Provides additionnal info on both the alias file itself and - the target file/folder. - - Print-out version number : - RAliasFile.version - - Typical use from Ruby : - raf=RAliasFile.new(“/absolute/path/to/alias/file”) - - raf.alias\_path # =\> returns the given input alias path - raf.path\_exists? # =\> returns true if the alias path does exists on the file system, false otherwise - raf.is\_alias\_file? # =\> returns true if the alias is truly an alias file one, false otherwise - raf.is\_alias\_broken? # =\> returns true if alias is broken, false otherwise - raf.resolved\_path # =\> returns the path of the alias target - raf.was\_aliased? # =\> returns true if the alias is a correct alias file, false otherwise - raf.is\_folder\_alias? # =\> returns true if the target of the alias is a folder, false otherwise - raf.is\_file\_alias? # =\> returns true if the target of the alias is a file, false otherwise \*/ #include \ #include \ #include \ #include \ VALUE cRAliasFile; /\* - Initialize all internal variables _/ VALUE m\_raliasfile\_init(int argc, VALUE_ argv, VALUE self) […] /\* - Sets alias path to alias\_path \*/ VALUE m\_set\_alias\_path(VALUE self, VALUE alias\_path) { rb\_iv\_set(self, “@alias\_path”, alias\_path); } /\* - returns true if the path given for the alias file is on the file system, false otherwise \*/ VALUE m\_path\_exists(VALUE self) { return rb\_iv\_get(self, “@path\_exists”); } […] ---
**Author:** ![MSEdward\_SEdS\_Bora](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@MSEdward\_SEdS\_Bora](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/MSEdward_SEdS_Bora)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2006, 9:37am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/how-good-is-rdoc-at-documenting-raw-c-code/67695/3 "2006-09-06T09:37:26Z")
On Sep 5, 2006, at 8:50 PM, Yvon T. wrote: > - Sets alias path to alias\_path > \*/ > VALUE m\_set\_alias\_path(VALUE self, VALUE alias\_path) { > rb\_iv\_set(self, “@alias\_path”, alias\_path); > } Don’t forget call-seq: something like call-seq: some\_object.alias\_path(alias) → alias – Eric H. - removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid - [http://blog.segment7.net](http://blog.segment7.net) This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant [http://trackmap.robotcoop.com](http://trackmap.robotcoop.com) ---
**Author:** ![MSEdward\_SEdS\_Bora](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@MSEdward\_SEdS\_Bora](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/MSEdward_SEdS_Bora)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2006, 6:38pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/how-good-is-rdoc-at-documenting-raw-c-code/67695/4 "2006-09-06T18:38:31Z")
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: > Just out of curiosity, if I have some fairly well constructed C++ code, > how good a job of document generation can I expect to get from RDoc with > no modifications to the code? Doxygen is better suited for this task: [http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/](http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFE/vlZmV9O7RYnKMcRAug2AJ4szOAeYl8de1KPhZGs35Gdb+PJvwCdEXzE HtgaQZUYOtCLXK+1nkjuxIw= =RO8u -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---
**Author:** ![MSEdward\_SEdS\_Bora](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@MSEdward\_SEdS\_Bora](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/MSEdward_SEdS_Bora)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2006, 10:37am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/how-good-is-rdoc-at-documenting-raw-c-code/67695/5 "2006-09-06T10:37:32Z")
Le 6 sept. 06 à 09:33, Eric H. a écrit : > Don’t forget call-seq: > > something like > > call-seq: > some\_object.alias\_path(alias) -\> alias fine thanxs, i’ll modify that asap, to be the clearest as possible )) ---
**Author:** ![MSEdward\_SEdS\_Bora](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@MSEdward\_SEdS\_Bora](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/MSEdward_SEdS_Bora)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2006, 7:26pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/how-good-is-rdoc-at-documenting-raw-c-code/67695/6 "2006-09-06T19:26:39Z")
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Yvon T. wrote: > Le 6 sept. 06 � 18:38, Suraj N. Kurapati a �crit : > > > Doxygen is better suited for this task: > > [http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/](http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/) > > however, it seems to me, they are not speaking about ruby ??? Correct, they are not speaking of documenting Ruby. Instead, they are speaking of using RDoc on C++ code. Doxygen is better suited for C and C++. RDoc is better suited for Ruby. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFE/wLomV9O7RYnKMcRAlhOAJ9OYrL+dqL7STvU2Cv7ziBAJv2DEgCfcArF 1OAY8YaWhyz9ngcZ2Ee10c4= =cgK4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---
**Author:** ![MSEdward\_SEdS\_Bora](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@MSEdward\_SEdS\_Bora](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/MSEdward_SEdS_Bora)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2006, 7:04pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/how-good-is-rdoc-at-documenting-raw-c-code/67695/7 "2006-09-06T19:04:36Z")
Le 6 sept. 06 à 18:38, Suraj N. Kurapati a écrit : > Doxygen is better suited for this task: > [http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/](http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/) however, it seems to me, they are not speaking about ruby ??? ---
**Author:** ![MSEdward\_SEdS\_Bora](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@MSEdward\_SEdS\_Bora](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/MSEdward_SEdS_Bora)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2006, 5:01am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/how-good-is-rdoc-at-documenting-raw-c-code/67695/8 "2006-09-07T05:01:36Z")
Suraj N. Kurapati wrote: > RDoc is better suited for Ruby. > Yeah … I have Doxygen installed. I suspect RDoc will do just fine on > “vanilla C” code, but I also suspect C++ will break it.