Phobos Documentation - call to action

[Jesse Phillips via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 18 March 2015 at 03:45:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> The bad news: the Phobos documentation sux.
>
> The good news: we can make things a lot better by just filling 
> in blanks. For example, picking a function largely at random:
>
>   http://dlang.org/phobos/std_uni.html#sicmp
>
> There is no Params section, no Returns: section, and no 
> See_Also section. Hence, I wrote a PR for it:
>
>   https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3060
>
> There's nothing clever about it, just filling in the blanks. If 
> we all pitch in, we can substantially improve the documentation.
>
> Some guidelines:
>
> 1. The sections Params, Returns, and See_Also need to be there. 
> (Unless there are no parameters, or a void return.)
>
> 2. One PR per function being fixed.
>
> 3. Resist the urge to do more, stay focused simply on filling 
> in the blanks, one PR per function, making things easy to 
> review.

Can I do this and not feel bad for not setting up and running 
unittests/generating docs (maybe because I just used the GitHub 
built in text editor)? Could unittest example blocks be added 
which are tested outside, but weren't tested once copied into the 
file?

I'm not against these things, but it may be easier to find time 
when testing/verifying changes within the system can't be done.