www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Ddoc and manifest constants

reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alex_R=F8nne_Petersen?= <alex lycus.org> writes:
Hi,

Is it by design that Ddoc does not emit documentation for manifest 
constants, or is it a bug? I'd really like to have documentation for 
some public manifest constants in my code, and I can't really think of a 
reason why Ddoc shouldn't handle them.

-- 
Alex Rønne Petersen
alex lycus.org
http://lycus.org
May 29 2012
parent reply "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 21:42:29 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
 Hi,
 
 Is it by design that Ddoc does not emit documentation for manifest
 constants, or is it a bug? I'd really like to have documentation for
 some public manifest constants in my code, and I can't really think of a
 reason why Ddoc shouldn't handle them.

I'd definitely argue that any public declaration outside of a function or unittest block which has a ddoc comment on it and is compiled in (e.g. not part of another version block or static if) should appear in the generated ddoc. If there's one that doesn't, it's a bug. - Jonathan M Davis
May 29 2012
parent reply =?UTF-8?B?QWxleCBSw7hubmUgUGV0ZXJzZW4=?= <alex lycus.org> writes:
On 30-05-2012 00:35, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 21:42:29 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
 Hi,

 Is it by design that Ddoc does not emit documentation for manifest
 constants, or is it a bug? I'd really like to have documentation for
 some public manifest constants in my code, and I can't really think of a
 reason why Ddoc shouldn't handle them.

I'd definitely argue that any public declaration outside of a function or unittest block which has a ddoc comment on it and is compiled in (e.g. not part of another version block or static if) should appear in the generated ddoc. If there's one that doesn't, it's a bug. - Jonathan M Davis

OK, filed: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8160 -- Alex Rønne Petersen alex lycus.org http://lycus.org
May 29 2012
next sibling parent Mike Wey <mike-wey example.com> writes:
On 05/30/2012 12:52 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
 On 30-05-2012 00:35, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 21:42:29 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
 Hi,

 Is it by design that Ddoc does not emit documentation for manifest
 constants, or is it a bug? I'd really like to have documentation for
 some public manifest constants in my code, and I can't really think of a
 reason why Ddoc shouldn't handle them.

I'd definitely argue that any public declaration outside of a function or unittest block which has a ddoc comment on it and is compiled in (e.g. not part of another version block or static if) should appear in the generated ddoc. If there's one that doesn't, it's a bug. - Jonathan M Davis

OK, filed: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8160

There doesn't seem to be any problem with dmd 2.095 (Linux 64bits). This code: /// Defines the version of ImageMagick where these headers are based on. enum MagickLibVersion = 0x677; ///ditto enum MagickLibVersionText = "6.7.7"; Results in the folowing documentation: file:///home/mike/Projects/DMagick/docs/c/magickVersion.html -- Mike Wey
May 30 2012
prev sibling parent "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 19:45:03 Mike Wey wrote:
 There doesn't seem to be any problem with dmd 2.095 (Linux 64bits).

Wow. Where can I get _that_ version of dmd? It's so far ahead of the current release that it must beat the pants off it. ;) - Jonathan M Davis
May 30 2012