DLang Spec rewrite (?)

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 5/25/13 2:16 PM, Borden wrote:
> I hasten to add that I don't mean to criticise the original writers of
> the DLang Spec for writing it in DDoc macros. So far, I've found the
> documentation fairly easy to follow (as plain text) and so I don't want
> to lose any of that should the spec be rewritten.
>
> It's also possible (although, in my opinion, less preferable) to keep
> the spec written in DDoc macros but reformatted to allow for easier
> conversion to other formats...

My attitude on DDoc has evolved in threes:

3 minutes: "wtf is this crap"
3 hours: "this sucks"
3 days: "grumble I'll make do with this although it totally sucks"
3 months: "this is pretty darn good"

To generate several formats from one source, a macro system is needed. 
One interesting thing I figured about macro systems is they're all dirty 
- they can't be really considered "languages" because they intermix the 
programming part with the very output generated. So, what macro system 
would you use? (Actual question.) Look at m4 - it won't win any beauty 
contests, either, and it's enormously complicated. DDoc is simple for 
what it does, it has somehow hit a sweet spot.


Andrei