[hackathlon] stdc ddoc needed ?

Baz via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Sun Apr 26 14:23:23 PDT 2015


On Sunday, 26 April 2015 at 20:45:32 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 4/26/2015 11:38 AM, Baz wrote:
>> Hi, is it worth documenting stdc ?
>
> No. In general, D should not be re-documenting APIs where the 
> documentation exists elsewhere, because:
>
> 1. have to rewrite it because of copyright
> 2. such rewrites introduce errors and ambiguities
> 3. documentation always gets out of date
> 4. a user would be foolish to use re-documentation rather than 
> the official documentation
> 5. our time is much better expended on more productive things.
>
>> I'm about to copy all the docs from offical sources, e.g
>> http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cctype/.
>>
>> There's been a post from W.B a few weeks ago about 
>> undocumented sources.
>> I don't remember if it included stdc.
>
> It doesn't include API interfaces.
>
> Thanks for asking before doing the work. I'd sure hate for you 
> to expend a lot of effort on this only to have it rejected. We 
> can't afford to waste effort like that.

Well, i should have waited because i've started and now i realize 
it wouldn't be human to do that in one shot anyway.

By the way, the stdc ddoc headers include some invalid addresses, 
e.g:

pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/_ctype.h.html

while it seems to be now:

pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/ctype.h


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list