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 273693
Small group structure bug example
When using nested C structures/unions with groups the nested structure/union does not use the group it was declared in e.g. "DummyGroup" in the following.
SecondLevel_s is not placed in group DummyGroup
*/
/** @addtogroup DummyGroup Dummy group
@{
*/
/**
Nested structure bug example /
struct FirstLevel_s {
/*
Second level structure which is misplaced
*/
struct SecondLevel_s {
int a; //!< Variable a
int b; //!< Variable b
} second; //!< Second level structure
};
/** @} */
In this example "struct SecondLevel_s" documentation is not placed in the "DummyGroup". A workaround is to add "@InGroup DummyGroup", but this seems wrong as the group is already specified.
On 2014-06-06 15:37:34 +0000, Dimitri van Heesch wrote:
Confirmed. Should be fixed in the next GIT update.
On 2014-06-28 11:04:32 +0000, Lars Munch wrote:
Resolved, Thanks.
On 2015-01-13 09:50:26 +0000, Maksim S wrote:
Is there a way to switch this behavior off?
In 1.8.6 groups containing several complex classes were clean, but in 1.8.9 a lot of internal (nested) structures and enums are added to group making it hard to understand the bigger picture.
Maybe it could be controlled with an option?
On 2015-06-26 19:06:22 +0000, Dimitri van Heesch wrote:
I'll add the option GROUP_NESTED_COMPOUNDS for this (default will be off)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
status RESOLVED severity normal in component general for ---
Reported in version 1.8.6 on platform Other
Assigned to: Dimitri van Heesch
Original attachment names and IDs:
On 2014-04-07 09:27:10 +0000, Lars Munch wrote:
On 2014-06-06 15:37:34 +0000, Dimitri van Heesch wrote:
On 2014-06-28 11:04:32 +0000, Lars Munch wrote:
On 2015-01-13 09:50:26 +0000, Maksim S wrote:
On 2015-06-26 19:06:22 +0000, Dimitri van Heesch wrote:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: