Are there any default dmd optimizations

[Walter Bright]

On 2/26/2013 4:08 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 February 2013 at 23:44:32 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> As Andrei has demonstrated, Ddoc can generate html, pdf, and ebooks without
>> changing the Ddoc comments.
>
> This is not true in general because ddoc doesn't properly encode its output for
> different formats

ddoc relies on using the macros to encode for different formats. Setting up the 
macros right is something for the user, although the default is for html.


> (it doesn't even get html right!)

The default setup should generate standard html. If the html is wrong, that 
should be a bug report in bugzilla, not an indictment of the approach.


> ===
> Embedded HTML
>
> HTML can be embedded into the documentation comments, and it will be passed
> through to the HTML output unchanged. However, since it is not necessarily true
> that HTML will be the desired output format of the embedded documentation
> comment extractor, it is best to avoid using it where practical.
> ===
>
>
> This "feature" is why I haven't bothered documenting my html library: the html
> examples are incorrectly displayed in the output!

Yes, if you write incorrect html in the ddoc comments, they'll just get passed 
through to the output. I don't think that is a fault with ddoc, though.


> Of course, it will kill the embedded html misfeature, which even the
> documentation, as seen above, admits is a bad idea to use anyway!

It's not actually a feature of ddoc at all. Ddoc just transmits its input to its 
output, expanding macros along the way.