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

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

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

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

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