Closed gitelope closed 12 years ago
Sure. Is the point of modules to have more readable names? If so, then "Sequence Interpolation" is better than "iplSeq".
Well, we could have the group show up in the html as Sequence Interpolation, but have an alias be used to mark up the code. For example:
/// \defgroup iplSeq Sequence Interpolation
would allow us to tag the classes with
/// \ingroup iplSeq
and have the classes show up under the expanded heading of Sequence Interpolation much like with
/// \defgroup access Array access and /// \defgroup io Audio I/O
Come to think of it, I'll bet that's the only way to do it. Using /// \defgroup Sequence Interpolation would yield the "Interpolation" heading in the documentation for classes that had been tagged with /// \ingroup Sequence.
So, as I see it, the question is what replaces
/// \defgroup
Sequence_Interpolation? iplSeq? What would be your preference?
I went ahead and created a Sequence Interpolation module with: /// \defgroup iplSeq Sequence Interpolation and tagged the classes with /// \ingroup iplSeq
I figured you would be ok with that but let me know if you'd prefer it be modified.
Lance, how do you feel about adding a Sequence Interpolation module for classes in namespace iplSeq?
We already have one for the classes in namespace ipl called Interpolation.
It would require the addition of the following Doxygen comment to each class:
/// \ingroup Sequence Interpolation
or maybe just: /// \ingroup iplSeq
members of iplSeq:: : Base,Trunc,Linear,Cubic,Cosine