Anybody still using the chm docs

[rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d]

On 16/06/2016 12:57 AM, captaindet wrote:
> On 2016-06-16 00:29, rikki cattermole wrote:
>> Honestly? I read the source for Phobos even with a internet connection
>> quite often. So having it not included isn't an issue there, but spec is.
>
> real programmers do ...
>
> well, i do sometimes too. but i rather regard myself as an average user,
> while i see you as an advanced developer. ppl like me like easy
> digestible documentation.

I like my information easily digestible too.

> i don't want to start a fight here. if it has to go it has to go. just
> making a point that it is useful for some.
>
> maybe a 2nd pdf could be made instead containing the phobos docs?

The spec is quite a problem in reading it isn't as enjoyable as say 
Phobos sources. That is why I mention it explicitly. But I have nothing 
against pdf form of Phobos docs.