How good is RDoc at documenting "raw" C++ code?

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/> 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.

···

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?

*
* 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 <CoreFoundation/CoreFoundation.h>
#include <Carbon/Carbon.h>
#include <CFURL.h>
#include <ruby.h>

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");
}

[...]

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/

Don't forget call-seq:

something like

call-seq:
   some_object.alias_path(alias) -> alias

···

On Sep 5, 2006, at 8:50 PM, Yvon Thoraval wrote:

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?

/*
* Sets alias path to alias_path
*/
VALUE m_set_alias_path(VALUE self, VALUE alias_path) {
  rb_iv_set(self, "@alias_path", alias_path);
}

--
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net
This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant

http://trackmap.robotcoop.com

however, it seems to me, they are not speaking about ruby ???

···

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/

fine thanxs, i'll modify that asap, to be the clearest as possible ))

···

Le 6 sept. 06 à 09:33, Eric Hodel a écrit :

Don't forget call-seq:

something like

call-seq:
  some_object.alias_path(alias) -> alias

Yvon Thoraval 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/

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.

Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:

Yvon Thoraval 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/

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.

Yeah ... I have Doxygen installed. I suspect RDoc will do just fine on
"vanilla C" code, but I also suspect C++ will break it.