On Thursday, 1 January 2015 at 14:16:05 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Thursday, 1 January 2015 at 10:10:53 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling via Digitalmars-d wrote:
My problem is very much the opposite: it's not that only ddoc
can process ddoc syntax, it's that raw ddoc syntax is, often,
not very human-readable.
Yeah. The enormous irony is the #1 ddoc justification - and one
of the big reasons doxygen or xml wasn't used IIRC - is
1. It looks good as embedded documentation, not just after it
is extracted and processed.
2. It's easy and natural to write, i.e. minimal reliance on
<tags> and other clumsy forms one would never see in a finished
document.
http://dlang.org/ddoc.html
blargh :(
I actually like DDoc as it is, and finds it readable.
Markdown is readable and all but the specifications are just
insane.
http://commonmark.org/
