[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 #5 from ag0aep6g at gmail.com ---
(In reply to Lionello Lunesu from comment #3)
> 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`.)

`unrelated` doesn't have a ditto comment. XT can't be set through case3, so why
should it be documented there?

> 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.

What harm would documenting R/XR on the parent do?

> (I don't even know what that instantiation
> should look like.)

----
alias c = case1!string;
c!byte(42);
----

--