http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10236
--- Comment #16 from Lionello Lunesu <lio+bugzi...@lunesu.com> 2013-08-27 04:38:47 PDT --- (In reply to comment #15) > (But usually warnings aren't 100.00% reliable. Usually there are very uncommon > cases where a warning gives false positives and false negatives. This ddoc > warning seems to be nearly perfect, but I don't expect it to be really > perfect. > I think here a error rate of 0.1% or 0.01% is acceptable. Keeping warning > implementation simple is sometimes better than trying to further reduce down > that tiny percentage of errors.) I agree that this case is not a priority and the patch would be acceptable with it unsolved. Another issue though is that I'm not checking template parameters. This is actually a bigger issue, as it happens far more often in Phobos and druntime. In fact, there are many occurences of both: many templates that do and many that don't document the template parameters. Now I wonder whether it's a good idea to use "Params:" for both compile time and runtime parameters. In the very least the generated documentation should mention whether it's one or the other. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------