Andrei's Google Talk

[Walter Bright]

lurker wrote:
> Walter Bright Wrote:
> 
>> dsimcha wrote:
>>> == Quote from Adam Ruppe (destructionator at gmail.com)'s article
>>>> To me, the biggest appeal of ddoc is that it doesn't require markup to
>>>> give good enough results. It's almost mindless to use.
>>> Not only that, because it doesn't require markup, the docs look good as plain text
>>> comments, not just when processed into HTML.
>> That wasn't by accident :-). One of the explicit major goals of Ddoc was to not 
>> require any markup unless you are getting into more advanced use of it. Some of 
>> the design was compromised to make that work, but I think the results are worth it.
> 
> Unlike doxygen, Ddoc almost accepts plain english. It's not hard to see how much better designed Ddoc is *for D code*. A generic document generator can never support unit tests, contracts and so forth. I disagree with our ''retard'' completely.

A doxygen example from http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/docblocks.html :

       /**
        * a normal member taking two arguments and returning an integer value.
        * @param a an integer argument.
        * @param s a constant character pointer.
        * @see Test()
        * @see ~Test()
        * @see testMeToo()
        * @see publicVar()
        * @return The test results
        */
        int testMe(int a,const char *s);

The Ddoc equivalent:

       /**
        * a normal member taking two arguments and returning an integer value.
        * Params:
        *    a = an integer argument.
        *    s = a constant character pointer.
        * See_Also:
        *    Test()
        *    ~Test()
        *    testMeToo()
        *    publicVar()
        * Returns:
        *    The test results
        */
        int testMe(int a,const char *s);