• d-bugmail puremagic.com (33/33) Mar 11 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9695
• d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/11) Mar 19 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9695
• d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/11) Mar 21 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9695
• d-bugmail puremagic.com (8/10) Mar 22 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9695
• d-bugmail puremagic.com (9/11) Mar 22 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9695

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9695

           Summary: Ddoc should emit enum member initializers
           Product: D
           Version: D2
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Keywords: ddoc
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: andrej.mitrovich gmail.com



21:19:11 PDT ---
Example:

module test;
/** */
enum E : char
{
    /** */
    one = '1',

    /** */
    two = '2',
}

$ dmd -D -o- test.d

The initializers are not present, but for documentation purposes they really
should be.

The question is whether to do it for all initializers, or only for
user-provided initializers (if that's even possible to do at the ddoc
generation stage).

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9695


Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |pull
         AssignedTo|nobody puremagic.com        |andrej.mitrovich gmail.com



21:55:25 PDT ---
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1771

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9695


Walter Bright <bugzilla digitalmars.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |bugzilla digitalmars.com



22:23:08 PDT ---
I don't see the rationale for why the initializers must be present in Ddoc. I
think that violates the principle of hiding implementation details.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9695




15:10:45 PDT ---

 I don't see the rationale for why the initializers must be present in Ddoc. I
 think that violates the principle of hiding implementation details.

This only applies to documented members. Anyway I'll bring this up in the
newsgroups to see if it's wanted by other people.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9695




15:17:40 PDT ---

 I don't see the rationale for why the initializers must be present in Ddoc. I
 think that violates the principle of hiding implementation details.

I've got an idea: How about we emit the initializer inside a new macro (say
MEMBERINIT), which by default is set to output nothing.

Then a user could override this in his own .ddoc file to emit the initializer.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------