https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14633
--- Comment #5 from [email protected] --- (In reply to Lionello Lunesu from comment #3) > 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`.) `unrelated` doesn't have a ditto comment. XT can't be set through case3, so why should it be documented there? > 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. What harm would documenting R/XR on the parent do? > (I don't even know what that instantiation > should look like.) ---- alias c = case1!string; c!byte(42); ---- --
