PDF version of D manuals

Jari-Matti Mäkelä jmjmak at utu.fi.invalid
Thu Nov 30 16:20:35 PST 2006


Anders F Björklund wrote:
> Steve Horne wrote:
> 
>>> I would prefer adding a proper support for D syntax and semantics to
>>> doxygen. There's not much point in reinventing the wheel again.
>>
>> Yes, but then adding D support to Doxygen is re-inventing the wheel in
>> the sense that Doxygen then has to parse and understand D.

Yes, but AFAIK Doxygen is much bigger project than DDoc. So there's a
lot more to reinvent in DDoc. I can see the benefits that DDoc has, but
from the outside it looks like it has been made for one purpose - to
produce very simple html code. There are no bells and whistles to
produce customized large scale documentation. And it's not that
straightforward to create flexible macros for other output formats. But
that's a good basis for creating something better, of course. :)

> Doxygen currently understands a simple subset of "D 1.0",
> even if doesn't understand much of templates and "D 2.0".
> (Currently using it instead of Ddoc, which just outputs
> blank for all code that doesn't have any comments added ?)
> 
> But for the D "manual" (specification), there are probably
> better formats to use than those done for commenting code ?

Of course. But for the standard libraries they are quite handy.



More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce mailing list