core.stdc in docs?

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 01:28:13 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> I know this has been discussed before, but would it really be that bad
> to have these in the docs? Right now, people basically head over to
> std.c for everything C99, and then later discover that those are to be
> deprecated and really just import core.stdc. I think this is rather
> pointless. We ought to take out std.c and add in core.stdc, IMHO.

Probably a good idea, but it requires putting ddoc comments on all of those 
functions in druntime (either empty ones or ones with links to the C docs 
somewhere online), which is potentially a fair bit of work. Also, in some 
cases, something like the StdDdoc version that Phobos uses (probably either 
CoreDdoc or just reuse StdDdoc) is going to have to be added to enable 
documentation-specific versions (without using D_Ddoc, since that runs into 
issue with people who try and compile their documentation and actual code at 
the same time - not a great practice IMO, but that's why StdDdoc exists). 
Also, there have been some discussions about how druntime should be split up 
as far as architectures and OSes go, and the documentation would be affected by 
that.

- Jonathan M Davis