When it comes to writing code, documentation is crucial for its readability and maintainability. One of the most popular tools for documenting code is Doxygen, a documentation generator that supports various programming languages. However, when it comes to placing Doxygen comment blocks in an internal library, the question arises: should they be placed in the header (H) files or the source (CPP) files? In this article, we will discuss the best practice for placing Doxygen comment blocks in an internal library.
Firstly, let's understand the purpose of Doxygen comment blocks. They serve as a form of inline documentation, providing information about the code's purpose, parameters, return values, and any other relevant details. This allows developers to understand the code without having to go through the entire source file. With this in mind, we can now discuss the pros and cons of placing Doxygen comment blocks in the header and source files.
Placing Doxygen comment blocks in the header files has its advantages. Firstly, it allows for better organization and separation of concerns. The header file contains the class or function declarations, and therefore, documenting them in the same file makes it easier to understand and maintain the code. In addition to that, it also allows for easy access to the comments from any other source file that includes the header file. This is particularly useful when working with large projects with multiple source files. Furthermore, placing Doxygen comment blocks in the header files also ensures that the comments are visible in the documentation generated by Doxygen.
However, there are also some drawbacks to placing Doxygen comment blocks in the header files. One of the main concerns is the clutter it can create in the header files. Since header files are included in other source files, the comments can become repetitive and may make it difficult to read the code. Moreover, if the comments are lengthy, it can significantly increase the size of the header file, which can impact compilation time. Another concern is that the comments in the header files may become outdated or inaccurate if not properly maintained.
On the other hand, placing Doxygen comment blocks in the source files has its own benefits. It keeps the header files clean and concise, making it easier to read and understand the code. This is particularly useful when working with template classes or functions, where the header file can quickly become cluttered with comments. Placing the comments in the source files also reduces the risk of outdated or inaccurate comments since they are placed directly above the code they refer to. Furthermore, it also improves the compilation time since the header files are not bloated with comments.
However, the downside of placing Doxygen comment blocks in the source files is that they are not visible in the documentation generated by Doxygen. This can make it difficult for developers to understand the code if they solely rely on the documentation. Moreover, it also makes it difficult to access the comments from other source files. This can be particularly troublesome when working with complex projects with multiple source files.
In conclusion, the best practice for placing Doxygen comment blocks in an internal library is to strike a balance between the header and source files. It is recommended to place the main comments in the header files, such as class or function descriptions, as it allows for better organization and visibility in the generated documentation. However, it is also advisable to place any additional or lengthy comments in the source files to keep the header files clean and concise. By following this approach, we can ensure that the code is well-documented and
