[Issue 14307] Ddoc: issue error on all functions that are missing ddoc sections
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14307 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P1 |P4 --
[Issue 14307] Ddoc: issue error on all functions that are missing ddoc sections
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14307 Jacob Carlborg changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d...@me.com --- Comment #3 from Jacob Carlborg --- If you implement this, it should apply for protected symbols as well. --
[Issue 14307] Ddoc: issue error on all functions that are missing ddoc sections
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14307 --- Comment #2 from hst...@quickfur.ath.cx --- Note that Example: sections may have been generated by ddoc'd unittest blocks rather than an explicit Example section in the ddoc comment. In fact, ddoc's unittest blocks are preferred, because then you know that the test suite actually verifies that the example works, rather than some random code inside a ddoc'd comment that may or may not even compile, and of dubious correctness. --
[Issue 14307] Ddoc: issue error on all functions that are missing ddoc sections
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14307 Jonathan M Davis changed: What|Removed |Added CC||issues.dl...@jmdavisprog.co ||m --- Comment #1 from Jonathan M Davis --- In principle, I like the idea. However, I don't know about requiring Returns and Params sections and examples. There are plenty of cases where you want them, but there are also cases where they're so obvious that documenting them is redundant and therefore just creates noise in the file - especially on stuff like property functions. --
[Issue 14307] Ddoc: issue error on all functions that are missing ddoc sections
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14307 Walter Bright changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ddoc --
