DDoc is an embarrassment

H. S. Teoh hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx
Tue Nov 17 01:50:26 UTC 2020

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 01:13:30AM +0000, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Monday, 16 November 2020 at 22:36:08 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > There is no easy fix, however.
> Just show the condition with the declaration (as you can see I
> actually turn `version(x) {} else {}` into just `version(!x)` since i
> think it is easier for human consumption here). The user can figure it
> out (hopefully).
> > What should the output be, for example, if the `/// ditto`'d symbols
> > are both aggregates?
> What adrdox does is if it sees the ditto comment, it dittos the
> *comment*, not the output. So it acts like you copy/pasted the same
> comment text, but then reprocesses it for each decl separately.
> Funny how adrdox manages to keep up with these things, but ddoc -
> despite (or perhaps BECAUSE of) being integrated in dmd doesn't.

See, *this* is why we should replace dmd's built-in ddoc with adrdox.
It's like superior in almost every way.  It's about time we swallowed
our pride and admit that dmd's current ddoc implementation was a
failure, and replace it with adrdox instead. It will do D so much good
to fix this up.


I'm still trying to find a pun for "punishment"...

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list