"H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 06:27:30PM -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu via > Digitalmars-d wrote: >> On 12/31/14 12:30 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 11:50:51AM -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu via >>> Digitalmars-d wrote: >>> The problem with using only a single escape character is that it's >>> ambiguous when nested. If you write `X`Y`Z`, should it be interpreted >>> as $(X $(Y)) or $(X)Y$(Z)? >> >> That issue is fairly obvious, as is its solution - backticks (or >> whichever escape) don't nest; for nesting use the full syntax. Just >> like bash/zsh. > > So there will be two syntaxes for the same thing in the non-nested case > then? > > >>> Also, the people complaining about $(MACRO ...)) syntax aren't >>> complaining about the $(...) part specifically, but about the MACRO >>> part. No matter how you try to prettify it, $(MACRO x y z) is still >>> `MACRO x y z`. As long as you have a single syntax for all macros, >>> the syntax people won't be happy. What they are clamoring for is >>> dedicated syntax for the most common macros, so that they don't have >>> to keep repeating the MACRO part of the invocation. >> >> That's a bit of a bummer because that seems a slippery slope to me. >> But I guess we could standardize on markdown syntax. > > Unfortunately it seems Walter is against it.
One at a time :) > But on a deeper note, perhaps the issue isn't really ddoc syntax per se, > but the fact that doc comments can *only* be processed by ddoc. If there > was a way to get the raw text out, the people who dislike ddoc can pipe > it to the formatter of their own choice, and they would be happy. People > who are indifferent will get ddoc by default, which, despite its flaws, > isn't really *that* horrible. That's pretty much the very charter of ddoc- most misunderstood tool ever. Luckily I'll send some pull requests that simplify generation - some time next year :o)
