ketmar via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On Thu, 1 Jan 2015 00:14:23 +0100 Andrej Mitrovic via Digitalmars-d > <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > > On 1/1/15, ketmar via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > ah, "markdown" here means "anything human-readable", be it markdown, > textile, restructured, or something completely different. i don't really > care, as long as it's not littered by visual noise. > > I think the best way to show the benefits of any of these formatting > syntax flavors is to actually write a sample documentation page based on > an existing one from phobos/dlang.org, with the same (or close to) the > generated output as the ddoc one, and then we can clearly see how the two > compare and whether it's worth considering looking into. > > I personally agree the ddoc macro's can introduce a lot of visual noise. > > there is no sense in demonstrating anything, as Walter and Andrei seems > to be sure that Ddoc is human-readable, and there's no much sense in > changing it, as people should always generate html/TeX/other output, not > trying to read the documentation right in .d files. anything less > powerful than Ddoc will be rejected with arbitrary reason (see Walter > posts about escaping in markdown, for example).
That's unfair. You wouldn't us to give in to emotional arguments that lack reason. Make good points and they'll be minded. -- Andrei