Documentation for any* dub package, any version

[H. S. Teoh]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 06:43:55PM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
[...]
> Well, then basically, projects are going to need to decide to go with
> adrdox over ddoc if they want clean documentation. They'll probably
> get better documentation with adrdox than the default ddoc if they do
> nothing, but any project that actually goes to the effort of having
> nice looking documentation is going to fall flat on its face with
> adrdox unless it buys into adrdox whole hog.
> 
> dxml would be a prime example of a project that won't work with adrdox
> though given that it tries to emulate what Phobos has done with its
> documentation, and many of the macros are the same, which should
> minimize how much the documentation will have to be mucked with if it
> ever ends up in Phobos, but that means that it is very much not
> vanilla ddoc, let alone adrdox.
[...]

It's a sorry state of affairs.  I dream of the day when I can just write
code and documentation as-is, and downstream users can just use whatever
doc formatting system they like and it will all Just Work(tm).

Basically, it requires a standard way of writing documentation that
every backend tool understands and supports, be it ddoc or adrdox or
whatever else you fancy.  But I'm not holding my breath for that to
materialize.


T

-- 
Unix is my IDE. -- Justin Whear