Ready to make page-per-item ddocs the default?

[John Colvin via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 8 January 2015 at 12:18:37 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> On 1/6/15 8:16 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 1/6/15 3:44 PM, weaselcat wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 6 January 2015 at 22:43:45 UTC, Andrei 
>>> Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> Let's crowdsource the review. Please check the entries 
>>>> linked from
>>>> here: http://dlang.org/library/index.html.
>>>>
>>>> Andrei
>>>
>>> Is it intentional for all of the stdc pages to be empty?
>>
>> It's a somewhat unfortunate fallout of the level of 
>> granularity. I think
>> each of these headers should include a standard text and a 
>> link to some
>> good documentation in C-land. -- Andrei
>
> I like this idea.
>
> One thing that may be misleading about this -- our headers 
> don't include *everything* from C-land.
>
> What would be a good generic blurb? strawman:
>
> core.stdc.ctype:
> "This contains bindings to selected types and functions from 
> the standard C header <ctype.h> (see 
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/ctype.h.html). 
> Note that this is not automatically generated, and may omit 
> some types/functions from the original C header."
>
> I'm thinking we should actually just put a /// before every 
> symbol, to get it in the ddoc so you can see what *is* included.
>
> Thoughts? I can put together a pull for core.stdc.* if it makes 
> sense.
>
> -Steve

All public symbols in any module should have a ddoc comment, even 
if said comment is empty.

Does that sound like a reasonable rule-of-thumb?