On Thursday, 8 January 2015 at 16:27:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 1/8/15 8:19 AM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
What kind of action would you expect? Renaming a name
which has been used for two years now without complaints,
simply
because it looks bad in the new documentation?
As we usually don't rename functions with inconsistent naming
or
otherwise bad names because of backwards compatibility (TM) I
guess
that's not what you want. OTOH I'm not sure if ddox could be
much
improved in this regard. Maybe it shouldn't display the full
name,
only Class.member. But I don't really know what you expect.
I was thinking along the way of simplifying documentation and
links. -- Andrei
This is a problem with naming, not with DDox. It would look bad
regardless of generator, or regardless of documentation at all.
You could make it look slightly less bad, but you might end up
hurting other documentation. (I'm not implying it should be
renamed (bad reason for breaking compatibility), but I see no
point in changing doc generation just because of some bad naming.)
