Enhancement: issue error on all public functions that are missing ddoc sections

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 3/18/2015 12:28 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> Anyone want to take this on? Shouldn't be particularly difficult.
> I'm not so sure about this. I think there's a big chance that users will just
> add an empty documentation comment to silence the error.

Right, but then it becomes glaringly obvious in the Pull Request and easier to 
reject.


> I'm using a lint tool for Ruby that complains about this exact issue. Too often
> I just add an empty documentation comment do silence it. Although this mostly
> only happens for classes and modules, not for methods.

Why use the tool if you're going to ignore it?

There are several features in D that are meant for QA use, and are not 
necessarily to make the programmer's life easier. This would be another of them.

It's clear we have an endemic problem in the Phobos documentation, and just 
exhorting people to do better is not working. The bar needs to be raised on what 
is minimally acceptable.

Also, this feature would be enabled by a switch. Nobody has to use it, but I 
intend for it to be turned on for official D code.