DDoc adds filename as given on dmd command line in comment

[simendsjo]

On 10.08.2011 11:33, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:24:49 simendsjo wrote:
>> On 10.08.2011 09:36, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2011 09:13:02 simendsjo wrote:
>>>> On 08.08.2011 15:36, simendsjo wrote:
>>>>> I use absolute paths in a build script, and Ddoc uses the full path
>>>>> in a comment in the generated files. This makes version control
>>>>> very difficult as all developers has to use the same location (and
>>>>> possibly operating system). Is there a way to avoid this without
>>>>> changing by build script?
>>>>
>>>> Could it instead just write the module? Or module as a filename?
>>>> pack.mod ->   pack.mod
>>>> or
>>>> pack.mod ->   pack/mod.d
>>>
>>> It probably could, but I don't know whether that's generally desirable
>>> or not. I'm afraid that I don't even know what you're talking about
>>> with regards to Ddoc using the full path in comments in the files
>>> anyway. However, I wouldn't expect generated ddoc to be in version
>>> control in the first place anymore than I'd expect generated binaries
>>> to be in version control, so if that's the problem, I'd suggest that
>>> you simply not put the generated ddoc in version control.
>>>
>>> Regardless, if the current behavior is problematic for you, create an
>>> enhancement request for it. I suspect that it's something that pretty
>>> much no one has noticed - especially if it's something that's not
>>> actually visible in the documentation when you view it.
>>>
>>> - Jonathan M Davis
>>
>> I add the generated documentation to github pages to have the hosted
>> documentation somewhere. I could of course move it somewhere else, but I
>> don't see why I shouldn't put it there.
>
> Well, it's like a binary. It's completely regeneratable from the code, and
> it's generally just a waste of space to include it in a repo. Generally
> speaking, stuff which is completely generatable by build scripts isn't checked
> into a repository. Now, I can see why you'd want to do that with github, but
> generally, it's better to not include that sort of thing in a repo. Obviously
> it's up to you though.


To host on github pages, you have to add a branch in your project called 
gh-pages that includes the html files.
The documentation is not distributed with my main repo, and is created 
by the build script.
Blame github :)


>> My generated ddoc:
>>           <!-- Generated by Ddoc from c:\d\ext\dwin\index.dd -->
>>
>> std.algorithm:
>>       <!-- Generated by Ddoc from std/algorithm.d -->
>
> I suspect most people reading the std.algorithm documentation wouldn't even
> think that that's a path. Though honestly, I'd discourage you from having
> absolute paths in a build script. I don't believe that that's generally
> considered to be good practice. It's not particular portable and is likely to
> cause issues for anyone else who wants to build the project.
>
> So, I'd argue that this is only an issue, because you're doing some stuff that
> many people would argue that you shouldn't be doing, but I see no reason not
> to create an enhancement request about it. It seems a bit odd to me that Ddoc
> would be sticking the path in there anyway.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis


The reason why I have the build script is because of my windows setup..
When I run system(), it doesn't automatically use build scripts cwd.
I have %HOMEDRIVE%=S: and other oddities - and to get around that, my 
cmd.exe starts in c:\temp...

I can easily change this by running system("c: && cd\<myprepopath> && 
dmd ..."), so I guess that's what I'll do.