https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14633
--- Comment #3 from Lionello Lunesu <[email protected]> --- I don't agree with all the new test cases. 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`.) 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. (I don't even know what that instantiation should look like.) --
