Improving ddoc

[Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 1 January 2015 at 10:10:53 UTC, Joseph Rushton 
Wakeling via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> My problem is very much the opposite: it's not that only ddoc 
> can process ddoc syntax, it's that raw ddoc syntax is, often, 
> not very human-readable.

Yeah. The enormous irony is the #1 ddoc justification - and one 
of the big reasons doxygen or xml wasn't used IIRC - is

1. It looks good as embedded documentation, not just after it is 
extracted and processed.

2. It's easy and natural to write, i.e. minimal reliance on 
<tags> and other clumsy forms one would never see in a finished 
document.

http://dlang.org/ddoc.html

blargh :(