Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

call overloading needs documentation #9680

Closed
mauro3 opened this issue Jan 8, 2015 · 7 comments
Closed

call overloading needs documentation #9680

mauro3 opened this issue Jan 8, 2015 · 7 comments
Labels
docs This change adds or pertains to documentation

Comments

@mauro3
Copy link
Contributor

mauro3 commented Jan 8, 2015

Merged PR #8712 came without documentation. Documentation is needed for:

  • call itself, probably in the std-lib
  • how constructors now work and the relation to convert. In particular constructors for abstract types, new{...},etc
@stevengj
Copy link
Member

stevengj commented Jan 8, 2015

I added some docs in 11ab1b3 ... does this solve the issue?

@ViralBShah
Copy link
Member

The commit above does address the manual part. It would also be nice to have an entry in the stdlib documentation that can be looked up with help.

@ViralBShah ViralBShah added system:32-bit Affects only 32-bit systems docs This change adds or pertains to documentation and removed system:32-bit Affects only 32-bit systems labels Jan 8, 2015
stevengj added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 8, 2015
@stevengj
Copy link
Member

stevengj commented Jan 8, 2015

Added to stdlib docs by 00bd322.

@mauro3
Copy link
Contributor Author

mauro3 commented Jan 8, 2015

Jeff's initial comment on PR #8712 suggests that there is quite a few nifty things which can be done with the new call-feature, for instance his subarray example. Should this not be documented as well?

@mauro3
Copy link
Contributor Author

mauro3 commented Jan 8, 2015

Oops, I didn't manage to scroll down. So I'll need to update my comment! Sorry!

OK, so here after properly finishing the read:

The section in doc/manual/types.rst clears up the relation between constructors and conversion. But should it may go into doc/manual/constructors.rst?

The new new{..}(...) syntax in the subarray example still needs explaining though.

@stevengj
Copy link
Member

stevengj commented Jan 8, 2015

@JeffBezanson moved it to constructors.rst already.

@mauro3
Copy link
Contributor Author

mauro3 commented Jul 23, 2015

I think with closing the related #12242, this is also resolved.

@mauro3 mauro3 closed this as completed Jul 23, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
docs This change adds or pertains to documentation
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants