On 12/31/14 10:17 PM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 1 January 2015 at 05:50, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
Hello,
In wake of the recent discussions on improving ddoc syntax we're looking at
doing something about it. Please discuss any ideas you might have here.
Thanks!
One simple starter would be to allow one escape character, e.g. the backtick
(`), as a simple way to expand macros: instead of $(MACRO arg1, arg2) one
can write `MACRO arg1, arg2`.
I don't really have any particular opinions on this topic, but the
only feeling I've really had in the past is, "why is it so different
from doxygen?"
Most people are already familiar with doxygen.
Why is doxygen insufficient? Is there a reason ddoc was invented
rather than supporting the practically-industry-standard doxygen
format from the start?
No particular system was clearly dominant when Walter invented ddoc.
Also I might be frequenting the wrong circles; most people I know and
myself aren't fluent at all with doxygen. -- Andrei
