Documentation generation

[Bernard Helyer]

On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 01:55:35 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

> On Friday 06 August 2010 20:06:59 Bernard Helyer wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:22:53 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
>> > 1. Being a defined part of D means it's ALWAYS there. That means
>> > there won't be D compilers without ddoc.
>> 
>> /me waves.
>> 
>> I'm writing a D compiler, and have zero plans to add DDoc support. I
>> couldn't do it well enough for me to waste my time on it.
> 
> Well, that's your choice, but then you haven't followed the D spec in
> that regard, so your compiler wouldn't be properly standard D. 

Nope. But it doesn't matter. It doesn't affect the code built or 
generated, and that's my focus -- at least for the foreseeable future.

I'm writing a compiler, not a half-arsed documentation generator (because 
if I wrote the DDoc stuff, that's exactly what it would be).