Some feedback on the website.

[H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 06:18:22PM -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 04:09 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >Also, the lack of flexibility in number of macro arguments means you
> >end up with LINK, LINK2, LINK3, etc., with no obvious indication what
> >the difference is and where you should use which macro.
> 
> (Well the obvious indication is the number innit :o).)

But does the number mean the number of arguments, or the number of
arguments past the mandatory arguments, or an incremental poor man's
macro version number, or ...?

I think some agreed-on common naming conventions for ddoc macros
(perhaps just restricted to dlang.org / phobos / etc.) would go a long
way in alleviating this issue. Right now it's just a random grab-bag
where it's every man for himself and anything goes.


> A _simple_ way to handle arity might be worth adding to ddoc. Any
> ideas?
[...]

Allow overloading by number of arguments, maybe? (This sounds
suspiciously like a slippery slope, though...)

Or allow argument list slicing, D-style?  Not sure if this would solve
all the necessary cases.


T

-- 
Answer: Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion. / Question: Why is top posting bad?