Thread overview
[Issue 53] DDoc: Struct templates documented without template parameters
Jun 20, 2006
d-bugmail
Jun 20, 2006
d-bugmail
Dec 09, 2010
Michal Minich
Dec 09, 2010
Michal Minich
Dec 09, 2010
Don
Dec 09, 2010
Michal Minich
Dec 09, 2010
Don
June 20, 2006
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=53


bugzilla@digitalmars.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED




------- Comment #1 from bugzilla@digitalmars.com  2006-06-20 02:04 -------
Fixed 0.161 according to Bruno's analysis


-- 

June 20, 2006
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=53


bugzilla@digitalmars.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |




------- Comment #2 from bugzilla@digitalmars.com  2006-06-20 13:07 -------
Not fixed.


-- 

December 09, 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=53


Michal Minich <michal.minich@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |michal.minich@gmail.com


--- Comment #3 from Michal Minich <michal.minich@gmail.com> 2010-12-09 01:51:49 PST ---
dmd 2.050 generates the docs correctly. Probably should be marked as fixed.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
December 09, 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=53



--- Comment #4 from Michal Minich <michal.minich@gmail.com> 2010-12-09 02:10:35 PST ---
dmd 1.065 is OK too.

When I find some reported issue to be fixed already, should I mark the bug fixed, or leave this to be done by assignee?

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
December 09, 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=53


Don <clugdbug@yahoo.com.au> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |clugdbug@yahoo.com.au


--- Comment #5 from Don <clugdbug@yahoo.com.au> 2010-12-09 03:28:36 PST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> dmd 1.065 is OK too.
> 
> When I find some reported issue to be fixed already, should I mark the bug fixed, or leave this to be done by assignee?

You can mark it as fixed, but ONLY if you can reproduce the bug on an older DMD.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
December 09, 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=53


Michal Minich <michal.minich@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


--- Comment #6 from Michal Minich <michal.minich@gmail.com> 2010-12-09 04:10:18 PST ---
DMD 0.149 and 0.161 are both buggy as reported. Additionally, not using "short-hand" notation has the same behavior.

I don't understand why the need to reproduce on older dmd. (What would be the next action if found the older version is not buggy?)

It was fixed between 0.162 and 0.175

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
December 09, 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=53



--- Comment #7 from Don <clugdbug@yahoo.com.au> 2010-12-09 04:18:50 PST ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> DMD 0.149 and 0.161 are both buggy as reported. Additionally, not using "short-hand" notation has the same behavior.
> 
> I don't understand why the need to reproduce on older dmd. (What would be the next action if found the older version is not buggy?)

It would mean that something else is wrong. For example, it could be a platform-specific bug. Sometimes, the actual bug is different to what's been reported.

> It was fixed between 0.162 and 0.175

Confirmed. Works in 0.165.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------