On Thursday, 8 January 2015 at 12:18:37 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 1/6/15 8:16 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/6/15 3:44 PM, weaselcat wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 January 2015 at 22:43:45 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
Let's crowdsource the review. Please check the entries
linked from
here: http://dlang.org/library/index.html.
Andrei
Is it intentional for all of the stdc pages to be empty?
It's a somewhat unfortunate fallout of the level of
granularity. I think
each of these headers should include a standard text and a
link to some
good documentation in C-land. -- Andrei
I like this idea.
One thing that may be misleading about this -- our headers
don't include *everything* from C-land.
What would be a good generic blurb? strawman:
core.stdc.ctype:
"This contains bindings to selected types and functions from
the standard C header <ctype.h> (see
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/ctype.h.html).
Note that this is not automatically generated, and may omit
some types/functions from the original C header."
I'm thinking we should actually just put a /// before every
symbol, to get it in the ddoc so you can see what *is* included.
Thoughts? I can put together a pull for core.stdc.* if it makes
sense.
-Steve
All public symbols in any module should have a ddoc comment, even
if said comment is empty.
Does that sound like a reasonable rule-of-thumb?
