I'll take care of core.demangle. core.sys.* and core.stdc.* are interfaces for C libraries and I'd expect the user to refer to the documentation for those libraries directly. Documenting that stuff would be a tremendous amount of work and risks copyright violation if I simply paste it in from the reference docs.
Comment #2 by kennytm — 2011-05-06T11:21:47Z
(In reply to comment #1)
> I'll take care of core.demangle. core.sys.* and core.stdc.* are interfaces for
> C libraries and I'd expect the user to refer to the documentation for those
> libraries directly. Documenting that stuff would be a tremendous amount of
> work and risks copyright violation if I simply paste it in from the reference
> docs.
Well, at least mention what modules are inside these subpackages (e.g. it is core.sys.posix.setjmp, not core.stdc.setjmp).
Comment #3 by doob — 2011-05-06T11:47:13Z
How about add an empty doc comment at every declaration making the declarations visible in the documentation. And also add a note that the user should look up the original documentation, perhaps even with a link.
Comment #4 by sean — 2011-05-09T15:25:28Z
The module headers already say which spec they follow. What if I added a hyperlink to the official docs (when available) as well?
Comment #5 by doob — 2011-05-10T00:21:46Z
I think (In reply to comment #4)
> The module headers already say which spec they follow. What if I added a
> hyperlink to the official docs (when available) as well?
To me, ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E), for example, doesn't say much, so yes, a link would be better. But I think the most important thing is that the modules show up in the documentation here: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/phobos/phobos.html so one know that they exist at all. It would also help if every declaration also show up in the documentation, even though it's only the declaration and no actual documentation.
Comment #6 by andrej.mitrovich — 2014-04-23T13:19:20Z