https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16992

Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei@erdani.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |trivial
                 CC|                            |andrei@erdani.com

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16992

Jack Stouffer <jack@jackstouffer.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jack@jackstouffer.com

--- Comment #1 from Jack Stouffer <jack@jackstouffer.com> ---
Well, that's odd, as all of these functions have ddoc-ed unit tests below them, but they aren't showing in the docs for some reason.

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16992

Vladimir Panteleev <dlang-bugzilla@thecybershadow.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |dlang-bugzilla@thecybershad
                   |                            |ow.net

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16992

RazvanN <razvan.nitu1305@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |razvan.nitu1305@gmail.com

--- Comment #2 from RazvanN <razvan.nitu1305@gmail.com> ---
It seems that the documentation builder has a problem with static methods. After erasing the static keyword from one method, the documentation appeared as usual. From what I've seen in phobos, static methods usually do no have examples.

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16992

--- Comment #3 from Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei@erdani.com> ---
The examples to appear in ddox, see e.g. https://dlang.org/library/std/datetime/date.from_iso_string.html. The problem is therefore in ddmd/src/doc.d. Probably the intent was to not generate examples for module-level static functions because those are not accessible publicly anyway.

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16992

--- Comment #4 from Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei@erdani.com> ---
s/to appear/do appear/

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16992

--- Comment #5 from RazvanN <razvan.nitu1305@gmail.com> ---
For now we could wrap the static call in a public call outside the struct and generate documentation for that function (and other overloads).

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16992

--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Panteleev <dlang-bugzilla@thecybershadow.net> ---
(In reply to RazvanN from comment #5)
> For now we could wrap the static call in a public call outside the struct and generate documentation for that function (and other overloads).

Why not fix the compiler?

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16992

--- Comment #7 from RazvanN <razvan.nitu1305@gmail.com> ---
I think that having all fromISOString overloads gathered in a single template function which is called fromISOString!Choose_type(some_string), where Choose_type is one of {Date, DateTime, TimeOfDay} is more elegant and the documentation can be presented a single time; rather than having 3 fromISOString functions dispersed through the documentation.

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16992

Jonathan M Davis <issues.dlang@jmdavisProg.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |issues.dlang@jmdavisProg.co
                   |                            |m

--- Comment #8 from Jonathan M Davis <issues.dlang@jmdavisProg.com> ---
(In reply to RazvanN from comment #7)
> I think that having all fromISOString overloads gathered in a single template function which is called fromISOString!Choose_type(some_string), where Choose_type is one of {Date, DateTime, TimeOfDay} is more elegant and the documentation can be presented a single time; rather than having 3 fromISOString functions dispersed through the documentation.

They're dispersed, because they go with each individual type and are specific to each individual type. They have distinct implemnetations and should be documented as such. I see no reason to have a module-level wrapper function - especially when not all of the time point types are even in the same module anymore, now that std.datetime has been split up.

The issue here is that the documentation examples do not show up in the ddoc-generated documentation in spite of the fact that they are in the code as ddoc-ed examples. There is no need to change std.datetime here. We need to fix the compiler.

--