• =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alex_R=F8nne_Petersen?= (9/9) May 29 2012 Hi,
• Jonathan M Davis (6/12) May 29 2012 I'd definitely argue that any public declaration outside of a function o...
• =?UTF-8?B?QWxleCBSw7hubmUgUGV0ZXJzZW4=?= (6/18) May 29 2012 OK, filed: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8160
• Mike Wey (11/29) May 30 2012 There doesn't seem to be any problem with dmd 2.095 (Linux 64bits).
• Jonathan M Davis (4/5) May 30 2012 Wow. Where can I get _that_ version of dmd? It's so far ahead of the cur...

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alex_R=F8nne_Petersen?= <alex lycus.org> writes:

Hi,

Is it by design that Ddoc does not emit documentation for manifest 
constants, or is it a bug? I'd really like to have documentation for 
some public manifest constants in my code, and I can't really think of a 
reason why Ddoc shouldn't handle them.

-- 
Alex Rønne Petersen
alex lycus.org
http://lycus.org

"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:

On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 21:42:29 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
 Hi,
 
 Is it by design that Ddoc does not emit documentation for manifest
 constants, or is it a bug? I'd really like to have documentation for
 some public manifest constants in my code, and I can't really think of a
 reason why Ddoc shouldn't handle them.

I'd definitely argue that any public declaration outside of a function or 
unittest block which has a ddoc comment on it and is compiled in (e.g. not 
part of another version block or static if) should appear in the generated 
ddoc. If there's one that doesn't, it's a bug.

- Jonathan M Davis

=?UTF-8?B?QWxleCBSw7hubmUgUGV0ZXJzZW4=?= <alex lycus.org> writes:

On 30-05-2012 00:35, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 21:42:29 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
 Hi,

 Is it by design that Ddoc does not emit documentation for manifest
 constants, or is it a bug? I'd really like to have documentation for
 some public manifest constants in my code, and I can't really think of a
 reason why Ddoc shouldn't handle them.

 I'd definitely argue that any public declaration outside of a function or
 unittest block which has a ddoc comment on it and is compiled in (e.g. not
 part of another version block or static if) should appear in the generated
 ddoc. If there's one that doesn't, it's a bug.

 - Jonathan M Davis

OK, filed: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8160

-- 
Alex Rønne Petersen
alex lycus.org
http://lycus.org

Mike Wey <mike-wey example.com> writes:

On 05/30/2012 12:52 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
 On 30-05-2012 00:35, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 21:42:29 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
 Hi,

 Is it by design that Ddoc does not emit documentation for manifest
 constants, or is it a bug? I'd really like to have documentation for
 some public manifest constants in my code, and I can't really think of a
 reason why Ddoc shouldn't handle them.

 I'd definitely argue that any public declaration outside of a function or
 unittest block which has a ddoc comment on it and is compiled in (e.g.
 not
 part of another version block or static if) should appear in the
 generated
 ddoc. If there's one that doesn't, it's a bug.

 - Jonathan M Davis

 OK, filed: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8160

There doesn't seem to be any problem with dmd 2.095 (Linux 64bits).

This code:
/// Defines the version of ImageMagick where these headers are based on.
enum MagickLibVersion = 0x677;
///ditto
enum MagickLibVersionText = "6.7.7";

Results in the folowing documentation:
file:///home/mike/Projects/DMagick/docs/c/magickVersion.html

-- 
Mike Wey

"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:

On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 19:45:03 Mike Wey wrote:
 There doesn't seem to be any problem with dmd 2.095 (Linux 64bits).

Wow. Where can I get _that_ version of dmd? It's so far ahead of the current 
release that it must beat the pants off it. ;)

- Jonathan M Davis