On 1 January 2015 at 19:33, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > 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.
Okay. > Also I might be frequenting the wrong circles; most people I know and myself > aren't > fluent at all with doxygen. -- Andrei What do you tend to use instead? I miss doxygen's '\' tags. For instance, '\a argName' to refer to a function argument argName, which will be formatted appropriately and all that. I find it a lot less visually distracting. It might also be interesting to note that doxygen implemented markdown support quite some time back, so I think there's precedent for people expecting that markdown be available for use in their documentation.