[Issue 14633] DDoc: false warnings for missing parameters on template declaration

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14633

--- Comment #3 from Lionello Lunesu <lio+bugzilla at lunesu.com> ---
I don't agree with all the new test cases.

Note that "ditto" is as if you'd copy-paste the entire comment on the new
declaration. So 'unrelated' is not unrelated. It's just as related as the other
parts. Which is why with the current PR there's not warning emitted for `xr`
and `XT` (same as `r` and `T`.)

I also don't agree that we should allow `R` (nor `XR`) to be documented on the
parent. The only reason to have this pattern [explicit template with nested
eponymous template] is to allow one explicit template parameter (`T`), while at
the same time having overloads where the other template parameter(s) (`R`) are
deduced from the regular function parameter (`r`.) Instantiating the template
by specifying (and therefor documenting) both template parameters seem useless.
(I don't even know what that instantiation should look like.)

--