DLang Spec rewrite (?)

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 00:32:01 Walter Bright wrote:
> On 5/25/2013 10:34 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > My main complaint about ddoc is actually not a complaint about ddoc but
> > about html. I find it very annoying to have to put $(P ) around every
> > paragraph. Stuff like LaTeX does that automatically based on blank lines,
> > which is way better IMHO, but if you're targetting HTML, then
> > unfortunately, you need to mark paragraphs. The only way to fix that with
> > regards to ddoc would be to make it so that ddoc understood that blank
> > lines meant new paragraphs and inserted <p></p> appropriately, when
> > generating html, but that would make it so that ddoc was less general,
> > and there might be other negatives to that I haven't thought of. So, we
> > just get to deal with $(P ) I guess.
> 
> The issue with implied paragraph breaks is that then ddoc would have to get
> a lot smarter to avoid putting $(P ) around everything with a blank lines,
> and then you are already down the path of creating a markup language, not a
> macro language.

Which is why I'm not pushing for any changes in that regard. For some of the 
stuff that I'm writing in ddoc right now, I considered having the program that 
does the build add the $(P) macros for me but decided that it was better to 
just suck it up and use $(P) rather than risk problems with code blocks with 
blank lines in them and whatnot (I'm using a D program to do the build because 
it's easier than writing makefile, and I needed a program to generate the table 
of contents and index anyway, since ddoc can't do that).

So, I'm not sure what the best solution with regards to $(P) is, and for the 
moment, it looks like it's just better to put up with it, but it does end up 
being my #1 annoyance when dealing with ddoc.

- Jonathan M Davis