On 2012-04-04 13:38, Ary Manzana wrote:
Ah, no. That's because I ran it against object.di, which doesn't have
ddoc comments at all. I don't generate cross-references to undocumented
symbols.
I uploaded a new version which I ran against an object.di which has
empty ddocs for everything. Now you can see there are some
cross-references. (if you find some is missing, please tell me).
Cool, but what I actually was referring to was template types, i.e. the
first declaration in http://pancake.io/1e79d0/array.html:
ForeachType!(Range)[] array(Range)(Range r);
"ForeachType" is not a link.
Why are you not using the mangled name when creating anchors?
I don't think there's need for the mangled name. It's also more natural
to give a link like foo.html?Some.Class than a mangled name.
Sure but then it won't be possible to reference different overloaded
functions? If you're not creating your own human readable form of
mangling, i.e.
foo.html#Foo.bar(int)
foo.html#Foo.bar(char)
I think it's more important that the doc generator behaves correctly
than outputting pretty URL's.
I found a case where the fully qualified name is not used:
http://pancake.io/1e79d0/complex.html#toString
The name is just "toString" instead of "Complex.toString".
BTW, why are adding an empty "a" tag for the anchor? Just add an "id" on
the actual tag you want to refer to.
The cross-referencing worked better in Descent, why are you doing it
differently?
--
/Jacob Carlborg
