new DIP47: Outlining member functions of aggregates

[Jesse Phillips]

On Monday, 9 September 2013 at 18:23:21 UTC, Joseph Rushton 
Wakeling wrote:
> On 09/09/13 20:05, Jesse Phillips wrote:
>> I think DDOC should be improved to handle this scenario. Being 
>> able to generate
>> docs with undocumented members would be great for internal 
>> development of the
>> module. I realize that doesn't address all your problems, but 
>> I think that is
>> the correct direction.
>
> Better DDoc is always going to be nice, but come on -- that 
> doesn't address the issue of looking at code in a diff or a 
> copy-paste via chat software, and in the scenarios Manu has 
> described, no one's going to have time to write documentation 
> comments.
>
> OK, you could have a DDoc setting to at least _list_ all 
> elements of class interfaces etc., even if there's no doc 
> comment, but that doesn't address the other factors.

I hope you realize you've restated what I said? Include 
undocumented members, won't address all problems.

There can definitely be value for diff; if you're objective is to 
find modifications to public API.

I don't want to have a class pasted in a chat window, with or 
without function definitions (Unavoidable I know). If I need to 
do anything complicated with that information, into a text editor 
it goes (and on linux this would be in /tmp and easy to compile 
docs for; Windows, I just hope I'm not there).