The approach I've been using for a given header is to recursively do each of the "bits" headers which make up the standard header. So, e.g., while there are five headers making up , three of them were already documented in the course of doing other headers. "Untouched" means I've deliberately skipped it for various reasons, or haven't gotten to it yet. It /will/ be done (by somebody, eventually.) Area Still needs to be doxygen-documented ----------------------------------------------------------- c17 FINISHED (Nothing in Clause 17 "exists" in terms of code.) c18 , Note A c19 Note A c20 rel_ops (should they be doc'd?), Note A c21 Untouched, Note B c22 Untouched c23 See doxygroups.cc and Note B. stl_alloc.h, stl_uninitialized.h remain from the common files. c24 Untouched c25 stl_tempbuf.h (small), stl_algo.h (big) c26 , , stl_numeric.h[26.4], Note A c27 Untouched backward/ Not scanned by doxygen. Should it be? ext/ Untouched __gnu_cxx Extensions such as verbose_terminate_handler are documented but do not appear in output, since the __gnu_cxx namespace is itself undocumented. Should it be? Eeeeeeehhh... [1.3.5] "implementation-defined behavior: behavior ... that depends on the implementation *and that each implementation shall document*." [my emphasis] Not all implementation choices have been thus described; doxygen is not necessarily the appropriate place for such descriptions, either. ----------------------------------------------------------- NOTES: A) So far I have not tried to document any of the headers. So entities such as atexit() are undocumented throughout the library. B) Huge chunks of containers and strings are described in common "Tables" in the standard. How to reproduce this information? vim:ts=4:et: