• d-bugmail puremagic.com Jul 21 2006
• Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> Jul 23 2006
• "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> Jul 23 2006
• "Chris Miller" <chris dprogramming.com> Jul 23 2006
• Mike Parker <aldacron71 yahoo.com> Jul 23 2006
• d-bugmail puremagic.com Aug 11 2006

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=262

           Summary: Missing DDoc comments in on Socket.blocking
           Product: D
           Version: 0.163
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Phobos
        AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com
        ReportedBy: aldacron gmail.com


Both the getter and the setter for the blocking property of Socket are missing
DDoc comments. When reading the documentation, this makes it seem as if there
is no way to configure a socket in blocking/non-blocking mode.


-- 

Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

d-bugmail puremagic.com wrote:
 Both the getter and the setter for the blocking property of Socket are missing
 DDoc comments. When reading the documentation, this makes it seem as if there
 is no way to configure a socket in blocking/non-blocking mode.



I know nothing about sockets. Can you provide some comments I can just 
paste in?

"Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:

Something like this?

/// The socket's blocking flag.
/// When a socket is blocking, calls to receive(), accept(), and send() 
will block and wait for data/action.
/// A non-blocking socket will immediately return instead of blocking.
bool blocking() // getter

/// ditto
void blocking(bool byes) // setter

Too much, or not enough information?

Thanks,
-[Unknown]


 d-bugmail puremagic.com wrote:
 Both the getter and the setter for the blocking property of Socket are 
 missing
 DDoc comments. When reading the documentation, this makes it seem as 
 if there
 is no way to configure a socket in blocking/non-blocking mode.


 
 I know nothing about sockets. Can you provide some comments I can just 
 paste in?

"Chris Miller" <chris dprogramming.com> writes:

It looks like when Ddoc comments were added, the blocking documentation  
was added to the wrong element (_blocking (Windows only) instead of  
blocking() (there are 2 for get/set, one needs a ditto)). There also seems  
to be other missing ddoc comments, such as SocketSet.max (which should be  
documented in the old doc), and a few constructors (e.g. the exceptions)  
do not show what the parameters are (simple /// by them should be enough).

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 15:41:12 -0400, Unknown W. Brackets  
<unknown simplemachines.org> wrote:

 Something like this?

 /// The socket's blocking flag.
 /// When a socket is blocking, calls to receive(), accept(), and send()  
 will block and wait for data/action.
 /// A non-blocking socket will immediately return instead of blocking.
 bool blocking() // getter

 /// ditto
 void blocking(bool byes) // setter

 Too much, or not enough information?

 Thanks,
 -[Unknown]


 d-bugmail puremagic.com wrote:
 Both the getter and the setter for the blocking property of Socket are  
 missing
 DDoc comments. When reading the documentation, this makes it seem as  
 if there
 is no way to configure a socket in blocking/non-blocking mode.


 just paste in?

Mike Parker <aldacron71 yahoo.com> writes:

Chris Miller wrote:
 It looks like when Ddoc comments were added, the blocking documentation 
 was added to the wrong element (_blocking (Windows only) instead of 
 blocking() (there are 2 for get/set, one needs a ditto)). There also 
 seems to be other missing ddoc comments, such as SocketSet.max (which 
 should be documented in the old doc), and a few constructors (e.g. the 
 exceptions) do not show what the parameters are (simple /// by them 
 should be enough).


I really borked both bug reports I posted about the socket module. I 
didn't examine anything beyond the blocking property methods. I should 
have noticed all of that myself and included it.

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=262


bugzilla digitalmars.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED




------- Comment #3 from bugzilla digitalmars.com  2006-08-11 19:14 -------
Fixed DMD 0.164 (added suggested documentation)


--