using keyword on base class function brings the documentation into derived class

[scott-zhong]

Describe the bug
using keyword on base class function brings the documentation into derived class.

/**
 * Base docs
 */
class Base
{
public:
    /**
     * Base fun docs
     */
    void fun(int);
};

/**
 * Derived docs
 */
class Derived : public Base
{
public:
    using Base::fun;

    /**
     * Derived fun docs
     */
    void fun(double);
};

Screenshots
Doxygen 1.8.13

Doxygen 1.8.14 - trunk (85eb55d)

To Reproduce
testcase.zip

Expected behavior
Base function documentation shouldn't be in Derived class with using keyword

Version
Doxygen 1.8.14 - trunk (85eb55d)

[doxygen]

@scott-zhong I think the later versions of doxygen are actually (more) correct.

If I change your example to

#include <stdio.h>

/**
 * Base docs
 */
class Base
{
public:
    /**
     * Base fun docs
     */
    void fun(int v) { printf("Base::fun(%d)\n",v); }
};

/**
 * Derived docs
 */
class Derived : private Base
{
public:
    using Base::fun;

    /**
     * Derived fun docs
     */
    void fun(double d) { printf("Derived::fun(%f)\n",d); }
};


int main()
{
  Derived d;
  d.fun(10);
  d.fun(10.0);
}

The compiled program will print

Base::fun(10)
Derived::fun(10.000000)

Even though Base is a private base class of Derived, so the using statement brings the function into the public scope of Derived which is what doxygen shows.

[scott-zhong]

@doxygen I disagree, using Base::fun does bring the Base's fun() into the scope of Derived, but should it be documented like Derived has defined the function? That is what it feels like if Base::fun is included in the Derived's API documentation (it is documented as both Derived's API and public member inherited from Base in 1.8.14 and later). I feel the previous documentation is more correct in that it is referring to see Base::fun for the documentation (Derived is merely exposing the API rather than defining it).

[doxygen]

@scott-zhong In your original example, you could simply omit the using statement to get the behavior you want. It doesn't do anything. In case where it does something (like changing the protection level in my example) I think the current behavior is better.

[scott-zhong]

@doxygen That is certainly true. I am fine with closing this issue.