Bug 648 – DDoc: unable to document mixin statement

/// this is a class class A { /// This mixin will bla bla bla mixin MyMixin!(); } this will only generate docs for the class. not the mixin. Some will probably consider this a feature request, but I'd call it a bug...

(In reply to comment #0) > /// this is a class > class A > { > /// This mixin will bla bla bla > mixin MyMixin!(); > } > > this will only generate docs for the class. not the mixin. > Some will probably consider this a feature request, but I'd call it a bug... > The same occurs with mixin declarations (DMD 1.014 on linux): /// Documentation for foo. mixin("int foo;"); mixin("int foo; /// Documentation for foo."); And docs are not generated for foo or bar. Gregor Richards pointed out in news://news.digitalmars.com:119/[email protected] that mixins are parsed much later than ddoc comments. But I would also consider this a bug.

(In reply to comment #1) > (In reply to comment #0) > > /// this is a class > > class A > > { > > /// This mixin will bla bla bla > > mixin MyMixin!(); > > } > > > > this will only generate docs for the class. not the mixin. > > Some will probably consider this a feature request, but I'd call it a bug... > > > > The same occurs with mixin declarations (DMD 1.014 on linux): > > /// Documentation for foo. > mixin("int foo;"); > > mixin("int foo; /// Documentation for foo."); > > And docs are not generated for foo or bar. > > Gregor Richards pointed out in > news://news.digitalmars.com:119/[email protected] > that mixins are parsed much later than ddoc comments. > > But I would also consider this a bug. Comment 1 is a duplicate of bug 2420

(In reply to comment #3) > https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/634 Actually does not fix this bug but another mixin related bug related to documentation.

(In reply to comment #0) > /// this is a class > class A > { > /// This mixin will bla bla bla > mixin MyMixin!(); > } > > this will only generate docs for the class. not the mixin. > Some will probably consider this a feature request, but I'd call it a bug... I would call it a feature request, because for it to be a bug, there would have to be a clear definition how this should work or a similar case that can act as a template. DDoc documents 'classes', 'structs', 'methods', ... in other words named symbols. "mixin MyMixin;" isn't a symbol and usually not interesting for the user of the class. And private members aren't documented, because they aren't usable by the target audience of API docs. So I assume your mixin does not itself add public symbols that should be documented ? Or do you request a feature to go beyond API documentation with DDOC, and also document how a mixin is expanded in the class ? That's what normal comments are for! Maybe you can elaborate a bit on what the mixin does and why it is necessary to document the 'unexpanded' thing ? I would say yes, if you proposed to move DDOC generation after mixin expansion (so newly introduced methods can be documented), but then you could document them inside the mixin itself - which would be a different 'bug'. Remember that a single mixin can add any number of new symbols, so documentation above "mixin ..." may come short in many situations. You can also discuss this on the D newsgroup, but be sure to give a strong argument (real example code) for this feature.

It's been five years. TBH I don't really care anymore. Close this issue up if you will, I've moved on ... (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #0) > > /// this is a class > > class A > > { > > /// This mixin will bla bla bla > > mixin MyMixin!(); > > } > > > > this will only generate docs for the class. not the mixin. > > Some will probably consider this a feature request, but I'd call it a bug... > > I would call it a feature request, because for it to be a bug, there would have > to be a clear definition how this should work or a similar case that can act as > a template. DDoc documents 'classes', 'structs', 'methods', ... in other words > named symbols. "mixin MyMixin;" isn't a symbol and usually not interesting for > the user of the class. And private members aren't documented, because they > aren't usable by the target audience of API docs. So I assume your mixin does > not itself add public symbols that should be documented ? Or do you request a > feature to go beyond API documentation with DDOC, and also document how a mixin > is expanded in the class ? That's what normal comments are for! > > Maybe you can elaborate a bit on what the mixin does and why it is necessary to > document the 'unexpanded' thing ? I would say yes, if you proposed to move DDOC > generation after mixin expansion (so newly introduced methods can be > documented), but then you could document them inside the mixin itself - which > would be a different 'bug'. Remember that a single mixin can add any number of > new symbols, so documentation above "mixin ..." may come short in many > situations. You can also discuss this on the D newsgroup, but be sure to give a > strong argument (real example code) for this feature.

Hi, I would say that document mixins themselves is not really useful (like Marco Leise said, the targeted audience of the generated documentation). However, since the compiler generates documentation (which is an awesome fact btw), it could also generate doc for generated source code from mixins. When the generated code goes on a public scope, having it documented is not only useful, it is necessary. For example, I use mixin to generate some callbacks accordingly of a network protocol definition. Since the protocol is known at compile time (and fully documented), these callbacks should be documented as well. Feature or bug, I don't know, but it's not working with dmd v2.058 :)

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1480 This only implements template mixin statements in D2, and not string mixins.

Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/a671cb3480d68201e868adf5f103fff95574a597 Fixes Issue 648 - Expand template mixins in ddoc. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/33c36716ed97b67e454815565c6f21f41af51983 Merge pull request #1480 from AndrejMitrovic/Fix648 Issue 648 - Expand template mixins in ddoc

Commit pushed to dmd-1.x at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/00bc154aa5bbe3bbad72906edbfa6ab8caf0fc6a fix Issue 648 - DDoc: unable to document mixin statement

The string mixin issue isn't fixed, but that is issue 2420.

It's not fixed. The revert should have been done in full because of the uncaught bug, instead you created your own fixup of my pull and now master is failing: http://d.puremagic.com/test-results/ You should revert everything and allow me to work on the fix again.

reverted.

I think this would be useful to have. For example: /// doc class Foo { /// doc mixin Singleton; } In this case you might want that the singleton should be documented and part of the public API. It would be a good idea to know that Foo is a singleton. Another example: /// doc class Bar { /// doc mixin Property!(int, "x"); } The mixin would expand to something like: private int x_; @property int x () { return x_; } @property int x (int value) { return x_ = value; }

Any progress on this? This is a real show-stopped for my std.logger.

(In reply to comment #16) > Any progress on this? This is a real show-stopped for my std.logger. The pull is up to date, and almost ready to be merged.

(In reply to comment #17) > (In reply to comment #16) > > Any progress on this? This is a real show-stopped for my std.logger. > > The pull is up to date, and almost ready to be merged. awesome. this is blocking my std.logger development. thank you

Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/18ef6ab1eccee2883cb88fd6f36887d394b3c89f Fixes Issue 648 - Document template mixin instantiations. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/fe5b9c1e0edd5d0790a69cb05d2a613cbd7ab5c7 Merge pull request #1485 from AndrejMitrovic/Fix648_2 Issue 648 - Document template mixin instantiations.