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

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 3/20/15 4:26 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/19/2015 5:08 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>> Ok let's be clear. This kind of overpedantic commenting is a good
>> thing in a
>> public, widespread API, like phobos's. Especially since you can generate
>> documentation from it, this is going to be googled for.
>
> Right, it's also to support automated tooling.

I also appreciate that whenever I go in some function like 
http://linux.die.net/man/3/popen I see the same uniform format. My 
purpose is not to write an exegesis of the documentation, but to just 
use the blessed function and be on my way.

I'd be super annoyed if whoever wrote the documentation chose to 
eliminate some sections for some functions just because <mock whiny 
voice>"they were a bit redundant"</mock whiny voice> or <mock whiny 
voice>"that's repetitive"</mock whiny voice>.


Andrei