[Bug libstdc++/57840] New: ::std ::result_of is undocumented

[Bug libstdc++/57840] New: ::std ::result_of is undocumented

[giecrilj at stegny dot 2a.pl]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57840

            Bug ID: 57840
           Summary: ::std ::result_of is undocumented
           Product: gcc
           Version: unknown
               URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/libstdc++-api-
                    4.5/a00875.html
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: minor
          Priority: P3
         Component: libstdc++
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: giecrilj at stegny dot 2a.pl

Declared at line 00172 .

[Bug libstdc++/57840] ::std ::result_of is undocumented

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57840

Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |documentation
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2014-09-23
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I'm not sure why the comment on the primary template doesn't show up (maybe
doxygen is only interested in a definition) and adding comments to the partial
specialization doesn't show up in the generated HTML either.

[Bug libstdc++/57840] ::std ::result_of is undocumented

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57840

Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED

--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
It shows up in the latest docs:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/libstdc++-api.20210701.html/a03925.html

But several other classes don't appear on the type traits page:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/libstdc++-api.20210701.html/a01565.html

That seems to be due to 
https://github.com/doxygen/doxygen/issues/8638

[Bug libstdc++/57840] ::std ::result_of is undocumented

[giecrilj at stegny dot 2a.pl]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57840

--- Comment #5 from Christopher Yeleighton <giecrilj at stegny dot 2a.pl> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> It shows up in the latest docs:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/libstdc++-api.20210701.html/a03925.
> html
> 
> But several other classes don't appear on the type traits page:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/libstdc++-api.20210701.html/a01565.
> html
> 
> That seems to be due to 
> https://github.com/doxygen/doxygen/issues/8638

I am no Doxygen guru but the source at <URL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/libstdc++-api.20210701.html/a00209_source.html
> has 2 @{ (#l00051, #l00237) but only 1 @} (#l00266).

[Bug libstdc++/57840] ::std ::result_of is undocumented

[giecrilj at stegny dot 2a.pl]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57840

--- Comment #6 from Christopher Yeleighton <giecrilj at stegny dot 2a.pl> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> I'm not sure why the comment on the primary template doesn't show up (maybe
> doxygen is only interested in a definition) and adding comments to the
> partial specialization doesn't show up in the generated HTML either.

There is no comment as of <URL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/libstdc++-api.20210701.html/a00221_source.html#l02373
>, so there is nothing to show up, and neither was there any at <URL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/libstdc++-api-4.5/a00875_source.html#l00176
>.

[Bug libstdc++/57840] ::std ::result_of is undocumented

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57840

--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Like 2371 is a comment using doxygen syntax. That comment was there in 2014
when I wrote comment 3 here.

[Bug libstdc++/57840] ::std ::result_of is undocumented

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57840

--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Christopher Yeleighton from comment #5)
> I am no Doxygen guru but the source at <URL:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/libstdc++-api.20210701.html/
> a00209_source.html > has 2 @{ (#l00051, #l00237) but only 1 @} (#l00266).

Already fixed in r12-1964

You know doxygen output isn't the only way to look at the code, right?

[Bug libstdc++/57840] ::std ::result_of is undocumented

[giecrilj at stegny dot 2a.pl]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57840

--- Comment #9 from Christopher Yeleighton <giecrilj at stegny dot 2a.pl> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> Already fixed in r12-1964
> 
> You know doxygen output isn't the only way to look at the code, right?

I thought merged commits refresh the published documentation.

[Bug libstdc++/57840] ::std ::result_of is undocumented

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57840

--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
No that has never been true. The date in the URL is a clue.