Misleading ? for optional parameters about dox HOT 10 CLOSED

There's nothing Dox can do to distinguish this with what the compiler currently outputs.

from dox.

Maybe my other issue over at the haxe repo shouldn't have been closed then?

from dox.

There's nothing we can do about that either. The concept of non-nullable optional basic types only makes sense on the Flash target anyway. All other targets require the type to be nullable in order to implement the optional/default value behavior.

from dox.

Last time I checked, the following gives a compiler error on all static targets:

defaultValue(null);

private function defaultValue(value:Int = 0)
{
    trace(value);
}

On static platforms, null can't be used as basic type Int

So it doesn't seem accurate that this only makes sense on flash? What happens internally to make this happen doesn't really matter to the dev using the API, you simply can't pass null.

from dox.

Maybe Dox could just always omit the ? if there's a default value. I guess the type itself should indicate nullability.

from dox.

I think that would be a good solution.

from dox.

Are you sure this is working correctly?

(left - generated API docs, right - actual code)

The API docs here shouldn't have a ? here for recursive.

from dox.

Is that the Flambe theme? It's very possible this has to be fixed for it specifically because the original fix was template-based. Try applying it to the appropriate flambe template.

from dox.

Ah, I didn't realize the fix was part of the theme. Thanks, I'll try that.

from dox.

Yeah, that did it. PR here: #97

from dox.