I have a mainpage.dox file which is invoked in the configuration file as:
USE_MDFILE_AS_MAINPAGE = ../mainpage.dox
Inside the document I provide instructions on compiling. I would like to list the compiler option as -L/$(MKLROOT)/lib/intel64 -lmkl_rt, however the $(MKLROOT) part is expanded. Is there a way to prevent this from happening?
When I put the following in mainpage.md
1 Test with backticks `-L$(MKLROOT)/lib/intel64 -lmkl_rt`
2 Test without backticks -L\$(MKLROOT)/lib/intel64 -lmkl_rt
3 Test with code <code>-L\$(MKLROOT)/lib/intel64 -lmkl_rt</code>
#verbatim
4 Test with verbatim -L$(MKLROOT)/lib/intel64 -lmkl_rt
#endverbatim
The $(MKLROOT) in the first example gets (incorrectly) expanded.
The other three examples work as expected (using doxygen 1.8.5)
Note that USE_MDFILE_AS_MAINPAGE expects a pure markdown file, not something with a /*! .. */ comment block.
FWIW the latest version of Doxygen as of this writing (1.8.15) still behave in the same way and escaping the backslash still doesn't work. I'm using the following workaround for now:
`-L$``$(MKLROOT)`
which, while ugly, works and doesn't require adding the <code> tags everywhere.
I've also created an issue in Doxygen asking for this to be changed.
Related
I'm trying to figure out how to modify an XML file with NSIS. So I'm trying to learn how to use the XML plugin. The examples on the forum page often use the format ${plugin::command} like:
${xml::LoadFile}
The documentation gives no indication that you need the dollar sign and curly braces. As I understand it, just plugin::command will do. So I've been trying to figure out what that syntax means.
The documentation says a $ is for variables and the {} are for code blocks, but I can't find anything about what it means when they're used together. My Internet searches have revealed that it's used for something called template literals in JavaScript. But what does it mean in NSIS?
EDIT: I should mention that the NSIS documentation does show examples of this syntax, especially in the Predefines section, but it still doesn't explain what the syntax means in general.
EDIT: Okay, now I see that the syntax is for the compiler to replace things using !define and !macro. But... what about this specific case? Is it valid to use colons in such a symbol? Why are some people writing ${xml::LoadFile}and some people just writing xml::LoadFile?
It's a !define. There is a header file for this plugin that defines it. The plugin probably needs to do more than one thing, so they wrapped a few lines together with a define that inserts a macro. Either that or it has some default parameters for the plugin call. Either way, it's trying to save you some typing with this syntax.
We are trying to implement an automatic markdown generator for an easily maintainable documentation.
When mentioning a variable's type, we would like to prefix it with ? when it is nullable, use backticks around it and add a link to its description. For example: `?[Article](#article)`.
However, the backticks break the link syntax because of the overlap. We use `?`[`Article`](#article) instead to make the link works but it creates a space between ? and Article as follow: ?Article.
Is it possible to make it look like ?Article with a link on Article only?
I just tested this out and discovered that there is no space between ? and Article. What appears to be a space is simply GitHub's styling of two <code> blocks up against each other.
Wrapping the whole thing in backticks won't work because backticks indicate code, and Markdown treats the contents as if they are a code sample where you want to show the source.
The best workaround I can find is to use <code> tags directly:
<code>?[Article](https://stackoverflow.com/)</code>
On both GitHub and Stack Overflow this renders like so:
?Article
(I have used a link to Stack Overflow as the link target here simply so we get a rendered link as an example. I expect that #article will work equally well in your environment.)
In my opinion this is even a reasonable way of doing what you want. Markdown's backticks compile to <code> tags, and inline HTML code is expressly permitted by Markdown:
For any markup that is not covered by Markdown’s syntax, you simply use HTML itself. There’s no need to preface it or delimit it to indicate that you’re switching from Markdown to HTML; you just use the tags.
I'm using the Brackets code editor to code in C++ and I'm having a hard time having the shortcut for lineComment and blockComment working...
The shortcuts are [Ctrl+/] and [Ctrl+Shift+/], they work perfectly for CSS, JS.. etc but not with C++ files.
I looked into the clike.js file in the CodeMirror folder of Brackets, the blockCommentStart, blockCommentEnd and lineComment are correctly defined.
Is it a known issue? has anyone found a workaround?
Before that,I was coding with Notepad++ and this feature was the one I used the most. It's really hard not to have it anymore
You said you saw that blockCommentStart, blockCommentEnd and lineComment are correctly defined in clike.js. From CodeMirror documentation
This file defines, in the simplest case, a lexer (tokenizer) for your
language—a function that takes a character stream as input, advances
it past a token, and returns a style for that token. More advanced
modes can also handle indentation for the language.
It is used to highlight the c++ file. But also it could be used to auto comment line with shortcut. However it is probably not implemented for C++. For this feature comment addon from CodeMirror might be used http://codemirror.net/addon/comment/comment.js since The addon also defines a toggleComment command, which will try to uncomment the current selection, and if that fails, line-comments it.
This was a Brackets bug, but it was fixed in the Sprint 39 release.
(Fwiw though, language metadata in Brackets is defined in a file called languages.json - although Brackets extensions can add to / modify this metadata as well).
I've got a rather big and verbose section of line-based configuration file. I'd like to use this section as template (assuming I going to preconfigure this section, test it and then replace actual values with $(make) $(macros)), substituting the key parameters (very few of them, really) effectively "cloning" this "template" with few customized parameters to the working config file. Can make do the work for me in the described case?
Please bear with me, I'm truly a make layman and even not sure if it is right tool in this case.
An example
I'm preconfiguring and testing something like:
<section0>
contains a lot of settings
which were tested and should
be exactly the same in every copy
except marked with trailing0
</section0>
I'm wondering that if convert tokens marked with trailing zero above to macros:
<$(section)>
contains a lot of settings
which were tested and should
be exactly the same in every copy
except marked with $(trailing)
</$(section)>
... wondering that I can utilize make to produce clones of premade configuration slightly customized with my data in place of macros:
<section42>
contains a lot of settings
which were tested and should
be exactly the same in every copy
except marked with trailing42
</section42>
<foo>
contains a lot of settings
which were tested and should
be exactly the same in every copy
except marked with bar
</foo>
Assuming "section42", "foo" and "trailing42", "bar" are substitutes for $(section), $(trailing) macros respectively.
You can use m4 preprocessor in your makefiles to do exactly that: expand macros in template files:
M4 can be called a “template language”, a “macro language” or a “preprocessor language”. The name “m4” also refers to the program which processes texts in this language: this “preprocessor” or “macro processor” takes as input an m4 template and sends this to the output, after acting on any embedded directives, called macros.
Create a file named section.m4:
$ cat section.m4
<section0>
contains a lot of settings
which were tested and should
be exactly the same in every copy
except marked with trailing0
</section0>
And have a rule in your makefile to expand macros in that template to produce section.cfg:
section.cfg : section.m4
m4 -Dsection0=foo -Dtrailing0=bar $< >$#
I'm abusing the C preprocessor for my build system to produce a "readme" plain-text file and a web page from the same source file. The construction is something like this:
The actual definitions are in data.h:
#define WEBSITE "http://example.com"
Note that the // in the URL must be quoted, or else it will be treated as the start of a comment. A similar problem occurs when using a , in the argument; the quotes are necessary, or else the comma would be treated as an argument separator.
Using this header, a file readme.txt.pp is run through the C preprocessor:
#include "data.h"
Visit the website at WEBSITE!
Of course, the preprocessor output is:
Visit the website at "http://example.com"!
The quotes appear in the output. Is there any way, or workaround, to get this code to give the output:
Visit the website at http://example.com!
I'm using Visual C++ 2008. I know that the preprocessor is not the ideal tool for this job; suggestions that use other built-in VC++ features are also welcome. (I tried XML with XSLT, but it is impossible to include one XML file into another, which was a show-stopper.)
Regarding XSLT, have a look at the document() function to read from multiple source documents.
I don't think there's any way to remove the quotes from the value of WEBSITE, since they are there in the definition of the macro. You might consider using the m4 macro processor instead of the C preprocessor.
Probably being late for Thomas, this might, however, still be useful for anyone lately stumbling over this question like me...
Try this:
#define DUMMY
#define WEBSITE http:/DUMMY/example.com
So the line comment disappears, and the preprocessor resolves DUMMY to nothing.
Try disabling the C++ style comments if possible. I don't know how that works in VS, but using a GCC compiler I can pass the -std=c89 flag to gcc to disable C++ style comments and hence making
#define WEBSITE http://example.com
possible.