DLang Spec rewrite (?)

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Saturday, May 25, 2013 20:10:53 Borden wrote:
> Good afternoon, all,
> 
> I would still like to compile the D Lang Spec into EPUB (and
> possibly other formats) but, as we discussed in these threads:
> 
> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/bsbdpjyjubfxvmecwhjl@forum.dlang.org
> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/uzdngvjzexukbgkxdzpi@forum.dlang.org
> 
> having the D Lang Specification written in DDoc macros is making
> it extremely difficult to work with.
> 
> I ask, therefore, what opposition would there be to me rewriting
> the DLang Spec files into another format that will be easier to
> parse and compile for the website, PDF, Latex, eBook and other
> formats? If the answer is 'minimal', 'go ahead' or 'it's your
> funeral', then my follow-up question is 'what format would be the
> easiest to write, debug and maintain?'
> 
> For greater clarity, I am NOT proposing to rewrite the
> DDoc-generated library documentation or any other pages outside
> of the spec. In the makefile, they are defined as the files
> covered in $(SPEC_ROOT).
> 
> With regards,

Can you please give concrete examples of what doesn't work with ddoc? On the 
whole, I find ddoc to work extremely well. Depending on what you're problem is, 
it may be the case that the macros in question just need to be rearranged or 
redesigned. Or maybe we could add a fairly simple feature to ddoc to solve the 
problem. Certainly, my naturaly reaction is to be against rewriting any of 
dlang.org in something other than ddoc. It's all in ddoc right now, so it's 
quite consistent, and aside from you, I'm not aware of anyone complaining 
about it any time recently.

- Jonathan M Davis