Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

[Walter Bright]

On 6/30/2011 7:05 AM, 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)
> )
> $(TR
> $(TD Body1)
> ...
> )
> ...
> )

I've actually been using different macros for that now, and it looks like:

$(TABLE
$(TH2 Header, Header2)
$(TR2 Body1, Body2)
)

which works and looks reasonable. In fact, I'll often just write it as:

$(TABLE
Header, Header2
Body1, Body2
)

and use a trivial microemacs macro to fill in the rest. Handy when you've got 50 
lines or so to do.


>>
>> Next, look at:
>>
>> http://sphinx.pocoo.org/rest.html#sections
>>
>> •# with overline, for parts
>> •* with overline, for chapters
>> •=, for sections
>> •-, for subsections
>> •^, for subsubsections
>> •", for paragraphs
>>
>> I challenge anyone to remember this table. Heck, I can't even remember
>> the C operator precedence table 100%.
>>
>>
>
> That's incorrect. Please read the paragraph above it.

Ok, my bad.


>> http://sphinx.pocoo.org/rest.html#external-links
>>
>> .. _a link: http://example.com/
>>
>> is that really better than:
>>
>> $(LINK2 http://example.com/, a link)
>>
>> ?
>>
>
> Some people may think it is, I don't, but you could write it as
>
> `a link <http://example.com/>`_

I find the back ticks and _ parts of the syntax wacky and underwhelming. Back 
ticks are used for D raw string literals, and I now think that was a mistake.