Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

[Adam Ruppe]

KennyTM~ wrote:
> Right. I agree this is one disadvantage in authoring the document.
> Although, in terms of readability, this is much better than
>
> $(TABLE
> $(TR
>  $(TH Header)
>  $(TH Header2)


Note that textual macros can do a *lot* better than this. If we
take advantage of recursive template expansion....

======

$ cat test73.d
/**
        $(TABLE
                $(HEADERS Something,    Something Else, Something To End)
                $(ROW     This is it,   So is this,     And the third)
                $(ROW     This is it,   So is this,     And the third)
                $(ROW     This is it,   So is this,     And the third))

        Macros:
                TABLE=<table>$0</table>

                TH=<th>$1</th>$(TH $+)
                HEADERS=<tr>$(TH $1, $+)</tr>

                TD=<td>$1</td>$(TD $+)
                ROW=<tr>$(TD $1, $+)</tr>
*/

$ dmd -D test73.d
$ cat test73.html

<table>     <tr><th>Something</th><th>Something Else</th><th>Something To
End</th></tr>
                <tr><td>   This is it</td><td>So is this</td><td>And the
third</td></tr>
                <tr><td>   This is it</td><td>So is this</td><td>And the
third</td></tr>
                <tr><td>   This is it</td><td>So is this</td><td>And the
third</td></tr></table>

=======


That's fairly readable in source and generates the html needed,
that looks pretty decent.

The default ddoc macros need more work than ddoc itself IMO.