Stagnant features, and missing features

[Walter Bright]

Scott S. McCoy wrote:
> This being the case, I can't imagine that many people have found the 
> ability to compile HTML extracting the D source code from it is very 
> useful.  So can we just forget that happened and remove it from D 2.0?  :-)

I originally thought that would be a very useful idea. It turns out not 
to generate any interest, so it could probably be removed.

> Further, I think a more elaborate documentation mechanism is thoroughly 
> appropriate.  I do like D's attempt to provide a documentation syntax 
> that does not make too many assumptions about the output format, doing 
> things like not including HTML markup as a part of the standard.  This 
> is fine and dandy, but some intermediate formatting would be a useful 
> feature, and D's incredibly light weight documentation comments do not 
> enable this.  Similarly cross-referencing is critical for documentation 
> as far as I'm concerned, but D's documentation syntax doesn't allow this 
> as well.  Since you can link to a normal URL from just about anywhere, I 
> don't think URLs should be omitted (I cross reference PDFs via HTTP 
> quite regularly).  When I write documentation in Java, it's chock-full 
> of {@link} statements which refer the reader to the location of the 
> information I do not wish to repeat.  Some formatting and cross 
> referencing features to enable richer documentation would be very useful 
> features, in my opinion, and I'd like to see them added.

You can use $(LINK2 url, comment) to link things in Ddoc.