On Thursday, 1 January 2015 at 00:21:42 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
It's quite unfair to not bother with whitespace formatting in
one but not the other. It's like the "before" and "after"
advertisements for cosmetics where the "before" has uncombed
hair, poor lighting, is frowning, didn't brush their teeth,
frumpy clothes, etc., and you know what they did with the
"after" picture.
It is the way original author has formatted. There is indentation
so must be not accidental.
Furthermore, the person who wrote the Ddoc macros not only did
not bother to format, he also used unnecessary markup - the
$(ARGS) is redundant.
Probably because it is so hard to understand what is necessary
and what isn't?
Making some effort myself:
$(TABLE2 Kinds of Arrays,
$(THEAD Syntax , Description
)
$(TROW $(I type*) , $(LINK2 #pointers, Pointers to
data) )
$(TROW $(I type[integer]), $(LINK2 #static-arrays, Static
arrays))
)
versus:
|Kinds of Arrays|
|---|
|Syntax|Description|
|-|
|`type*`|[Pointers to data](/arrays.html#pointers)|
|`type[integer]`|[Static arrays](/arrays.html#static-arrays)|
Second version still looks much more clear to me, despite
intentionally screwed formatting. It is a problem of
noise-to-content ratio and it is hard to compete with ASCII art
in terms of readability.
