[wxdocs] update on the status of the conversion

[Francesco Montorsi]

Hi Kevin and all,
    in these few days (sigh ;)) of holidays I'm looking back to the
documentation issues of wxWidgets.

LITTLE REMINDER: in date */8/2007 it was "agreed" by all main developers 
to use as new wx doc format doxyfied headers written ad-hoc, which would 
then result useful also for wxPython, wxLua, etc.


While working on the extract-interface-headers (i.e. the 
wxTex=>doxygen-headers conv script) I've found however some technical 
problems; in order to make sure that new problems won't arise further in 
the development of this approach, I've also updated the comparison chart at:
    http://mathdev.sourceforge.net/comparison
which provides a good test for any "new wx docs format".

FYI the doxygen source for the comparison is at:
http://mathdev.sourceforge.net/comparison/doxygen/wxstring.h

In the comments at the beginning I've also written down these technical 
problems. Any help with them would be greatly appreciated.

An overview of the comparison is at:
http://mathdev.sourceforge.net/comparison/Readme.txt


QUESTION #1: are we still all convinced of the doxygen solution?  *
I.e. if I'm going to spend many further hours on this issue I'd like to 
spend them on the final format and also begin to commit the results 
somewhere in wxTRUNK....

QUESTION #2 (assuming yes to Q#1): where are we going to put the new 
ad-hoc headers ? Is wxWidgets/docs/interface a good place?

QUESTION #3 (assuming yes to Q#1): is it ok to migrate to the new doc 
format even if it does not work yet for SWIG for wxPython/wxLua/etc?
I fear this last step (using doc headers for SWIG) will take still much 
time to be setup (especially because I think the only people used to 
SWIG are Robin and Kevin - I'm surely not).


Thanks,
Francesco Montorsi



* = not to start yet another flame war but I still have some doubts 
about this (doxygen) solution vs custom-markup one.