Hi,
I am trying to write a Common Lisp binding. As the CSFML function definitions are very regular, I intend to automate as much as possible. I'd like to also automatically generate the documentation string, by parsing it together with the function definition.
However, I have noticed, that the CSFML documentation is very abbreviated compared to the SFML documentation. As an example, here is the sfRenderWindow_create documentation:
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/// \brief Construct a new render window
///
/// \param mode Video mode to use
/// \param title Title of the window
/// \param style Window style
/// \param settings Creation settings (pass NULL to use default values)
///
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The documentation for the appropriate constructor in SFML is
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/// \brief Construct a new window
///
/// This constructor creates the window with the size and pixel
/// depth defined in \a mode. An optional style can be passed to
/// customize the look and behaviour of the window (borders,
/// title bar, resizable, closable, ...).
///
/// The fourth parameter is an optional structure specifying
/// advanced OpenGL context settings such as antialiasing,
/// depth-buffer bits, etc. You shouldn't care about these
/// parameters for a regular usage of the graphics module.
///
/// \param mode Video mode to use (defines the width, height and depth of the rendering area of the window)
/// \param title Title of the window
/// \param style Window style
/// \param settings Additional settings for the underlying OpenGL context
///
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
It is similar for other functions, often you have to consult the original documentation to fully understand the function.
I would assume that it'd be easier to just copy&paste the original documentation for the CSFML binding, instead of writing an abbreviated documentation. So is there a reason for this?