You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Created attachment 244759
Example header and settings file.
A template static member function, whether public or protected, will duplicate in the documentation as non-static public. You get a warning about the member not being documented even though it is. Documentation attaches to the invalid non-static public rather than the correct static method. Example that generates the problem:
/! \brief This class is documented./
class AClass {
public:
template static char* astaticfunc(C ainput);
};
/*! \brief This function is documented /
template
char AClass::astaticfunc(C achar)
{ return nullptr; }
This above included in attachment with relevant settings file.
It may be worth cross-referencing with my previous report: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=700693 because that is also a duplicate documentation issue related to templates, so it seems possible the problems may be related.
On 2013-05-20 10:50:03 +0000, Dimitri van Heesch wrote:
Confirmed. Should be fixed in the next GIT update.
On 2013-05-20 18:03:13 +0000, Dimitri van Heesch wrote:
*** Bug 700202 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
On 2013-08-23 15:04:52 +0000, Dimitri van Heesch wrote:
This bug was previously marked ASSIGNED, which means it should be fixed in
doxygen version 1.8.5. Please verify if this is indeed the case. Reopen the
bug if you think it is not fixed and please include any additional information
that you think can be relevant.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
status RESOLVED severity normal in component documentation for ---
Reported in version 1.8.4 on platform Other
Assigned to: Dimitri van Heesch
Original attachment names and IDs:
On 2013-05-20 08:44:14 +0000, geoff@telesiscomputing.com.au wrote:
On 2013-05-20 08:45:32 +0000, geoff@telesiscomputing.com.au wrote:
On 2013-05-20 10:50:03 +0000, Dimitri van Heesch wrote:
On 2013-05-20 18:03:13 +0000, Dimitri van Heesch wrote:
On 2013-08-23 15:04:52 +0000, Dimitri van Heesch wrote:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: