digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 9695] New: Ddoc should emit enum member initializers
- 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
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: -------
Mar 11 2013
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: -------
Mar 19 2013
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: -------
Mar 21 2013
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: -------
Mar 22 2013
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: -------
Mar 22 2013