ddoc changes

Jonathan M Davis jmdavisProg at gmx.com
Sat Feb 18 14:45:45 PST 2012

On Saturday, February 18, 2012 23:05:39 Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> If you want to output html code to be interpreted by the browser,
> you must use a macro instead of writing it directly in the source.

There are definitely cases where I've had to use naked HTML for links, because 
the macros didn't do what I needed, but arguably that just means that the 
macros need to be improved.

> Any objections here? I know some old files used direct html in
> their ddoc, and this is going to break that, but I think it is
> well, well, worth it. I think most new ddoc has been moving away
> from that anyway.

In general, it certainly sounds like the right approach, though actually doing 
it in practice may reveal some issues. Certainly in general, ddoc should be 
using macros rather than HTML. My only concern is the cases where you actually 
need HTML for some reason (as unideal as that may be). But maybe for that, a 
macro could be created which specifically wrapped HTML.

- Jonathan M Davis

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list