4x4

[Kiith-Sa via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 8 January 2015 at 16:27:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 1/8/15 8:19 AM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
>> What kind of action would you expect? Renaming a name
>> which has been used for two years now without complaints, 
>> simply
>> because it looks bad in the new documentation?
>>
>> As we usually don't rename functions with inconsistent naming 
>> or
>> otherwise bad names because of  backwards compatibility (TM) I 
>> guess
>> that's not what you want. OTOH I'm not sure if ddox could be 
>> much
>> improved in this regard. Maybe it shouldn't display the full 
>> name,
>> only Class.member. But I don't really know what you expect.
>
> I was thinking along the way of simplifying documentation and 
> links. -- Andrei

This is a problem with naming, not with DDox. It would look bad 
regardless of generator, or regardless of documentation at all. 
You could make it look slightly less bad, but you might end up 
hurting other documentation. (I'm not implying  it should be 
renamed (bad reason for breaking compatibility), but I see no 
point in changing doc generation just because of some bad naming.)