Improving ddoc

[ketmar via Digitalmars-d]

On Thu, 1 Jan 2015 00:14:23 +0100
Andrej Mitrovic via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:

> On 1/1/15, ketmar via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> > ah, "markdown" here means "anything human-readable", be it markdown,
> > textile, restructured, or something completely different. i don't
> > really care, as long as it's not littered by visual noise.
> 
> I think the best way to show the benefits of any of these formatting
> syntax flavors is to actually write a sample documentation page based
> on an existing one from phobos/dlang.org, with the same (or close to)
> the generated output as the ddoc one, and then we can clearly see how
> the two compare and whether it's worth considering looking into.
> 
> I personally agree the ddoc macro's can introduce a lot of visual noise.

there is no sense in demonstrating anything, as Walter and Andrei
seems to be sure that Ddoc is human-readable, and there's no much sense
in changing it, as people should always generate html/TeX/other output,
not trying to read the documentation right in .d files. anything less
powerful than Ddoc will be rejected with arbitrary reason (see Walter
posts about escaping in markdown, for example).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20150101/c6242982/attachment.sig>