Ddoc WEB function

Jonathan M Davis jmdavisProg at gmx.com
Thu Oct 3 11:06:26 PDT 2013


On Thursday, October 03, 2013 12:45:55 Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> > If you to restrict yourself to the built-in ones in your code, then use
> > the
> > ones at
> > 
> > http://dlang.org/ddoc.html
> > 
> > And if you want to define more, then create your own .ddoc file with them
> > in it. But Phobos uses std.ddoc, and we add new macros to it when we feel
> > that it's appropriate.
> 
> Fair enough, but ...

I don't see the problem. If you want the standard set of macros, then look at 
the docs. If you want more, then add your own. We need more in the Phobos 
docs, so we define more - many of which wouldn't even make sense as standard 
macros. I see no reason to restrict Phobos to the standard set of macros.

> >> , and is there any particular reason to favour WEB over, say, LINK2 ?
> > 
> > It's less verbose.
> 
> ... is there any difference between WEB and LINK2 apart from the length? 
> And if so, why not just include WEB among the built-in macros?

I don't know how Walter arrived at the standard ones. I don't think that we 
ever mess with those at this point. If we need new ones, we add them to 
std.ddoc. WEB saves a bit of typing, so someone among the Phobos devs decided 
to add it, and we've ended up using it. But all it saves you is the http://, 
so for the common case at least, it's kind of redundant to have both (though 
you do need LINK2 for when it's not http). If someone wants WEB, they can just 
copy it from std.ddoc. There's a good chance that anyone doing a lot with ddoc 
will be copying and tweaking std.ddoc anyway. I don't see a lot of benefit in 
adding anything to the standard ones, particularly when there's a good chance 
that you're just going to end up overriding them all anyway in order to tweak 
them (std.ddoc does that with at least some of them - like the colors).

- Jonathan M Davis


More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn mailing list