On 5/25/13 2:16 PM, Borden wrote:
I hasten to add that I don't mean to criticise the original writers of
the DLang Spec for writing it in DDoc macros. So far, I've found the
documentation fairly easy to follow (as plain text) and so I don't want
to lose any of that should the spec be rewritten.
It's also possible (although, in my opinion, less preferable) to keep
the spec written in DDoc macros but reformatted to allow for easier
conversion to other formats...
My attitude on DDoc has evolved in threes:
3 minutes: "wtf is this crap"
3 hours: "this sucks"
3 days: "grumble I'll make do with this although it totally sucks"
3 months: "this is pretty darn good"
To generate several formats from one source, a macro system is needed.
One interesting thing I figured about macro systems is they're all dirty
- they can't be really considered "languages" because they intermix the
programming part with the very output generated. So, what macro system
would you use? (Actual question.) Look at m4 - it won't win any beauty
contests, either, and it's enormously complicated. DDoc is simple for
what it does, it has somehow hit a sweet spot.
Andrei
