Andrei's Google Talk

[Lutger]

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 14:26:48 -0400, Don <nospam at nospam.com> wrote:
> 
>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>  Does ddoc output in pdf?  And besides, most of the tags *are* html
>>> tags, they're even the same tag name.  I can't imagine there's no
>>> htmltopdf program that would do exactly that.
>>
>> The reason they're the same is that the docs were originally written in
>> html. The original conversion to ddoc was done via search and replace.
>> One of the HUGE benefits of ddoc is that it does highlighting of the D
>> code. That instantly saved Walter a lot of time.
>> Seriously, converting it to ddoc did improve productivity.
> 
> Oh, I totally agree for the code samples.  And some of the other macros
> like $(V1).
> 
> But the manual markup, like marking every paragraph like this:
> 
>     $(P This is some text that is in a paragraph, and for some reason, we
> need a special
>         tag for it instead of using &lt;p&gt;, one that is hard to find the
> closing
>         tag for, because every tag's closing tag is simply a lone close
> parentheses
>         like this:)
> 
> doesn't really make much difference than using <p>...</p>.  The advantage
> of using html tags for formatting like this means editors will recognize
> tags, and everyone and their mother knows what html tags look like.
> 
> -Steve

One trick that can work wonders here is treating ddoc as lisp code, most editors 
are very helpful with that.