Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

How to fine tune output of doxygenclass:: #582

Closed
steffenroeber opened this issue Sep 16, 2020 · 4 comments
Closed

How to fine tune output of doxygenclass:: #582

steffenroeber opened this issue Sep 16, 2020 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
duplicate Duplicate issue

Comments

@steffenroeber
Copy link

Hi,
I'd like to have something like Qt uses for its documentation:

  • include header file
  • class name
  • brief docu
  • outlined members
  • detailed docu
  • detailed members
    I tried it like:
*****************
AbstractTransform
*****************

Header: #include<cbl/AbstractTransform.h>

.. doxygenclass:: cassandra::math::AbstractTransform

.. doxygenclass:: cassandra::math::AbstractTransform
   :members:   
   :outline:

.. doxygenclass:: cassandra::math::AbstractTransform
   :members:   

but this gives me warnings like:
Warning: Duplicate target detected:
and duplicates output of class name.

Best regards
Steffen

@vermeeren
Copy link
Collaborator

@steffenroeber What is the intention effectively? To have a custom defined print order for doxygenclass command?

@steffenroeber
Copy link
Author

Yes, exactly. I like the style of Qt docu and wanted getting some similar at our project.

@vermeeren
Copy link
Collaborator

@steffenroeber I don't think this is possible currently, there is https://breathe.readthedocs.io/en/latest/directives.html#confval-breathe_order_parameters_first but this is only partial configuration via a bool and not as flexible as needed for such a thing.

Ideally Breathe would gain a configuration setting that allows for fully specified output order. Specifically for doxygenfile and autodoxygenfile there is some way to do things with section option.

I think this issue is effectively the same as #520 in its goal, is it ok to close as duplicate?

@steffenroeber
Copy link
Author

Ok, sounds reasonable. Thanx

@vermeeren vermeeren self-assigned this Sep 21, 2020
@vermeeren vermeeren added the duplicate Duplicate issue label Sep 21, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
duplicate Duplicate issue
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants