Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:48:00 -0400, Jacob Carlborg <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2010-08-06 17:41, Alexander Malakhov wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer <[email protected]> писал(а) в своём письме Fri,
06 Aug 2010 18:28:41 +0700:
2. It seems like the documentation is HTML written as ddoc. I see $(P)
tags, $(LI) tags, etc. Can't we just write it as HTML?
I have had exactly same thought when I've first seen DDoc a week ago
I think many would feel much more comfortable that way.
I have virtually zero exp with HTML/XML, but DDocs syntax seems to be
pretty
straightforward
It's also more supported by editors. I forgot a closing parentheses on
one tag, and it screwed up the entire page. I had to find it by hand,
whereas an HTML editor could red-flag a tag without a closing tag, or
you could run it through an XML verifier (if it's xhtml).
Good points. And XML is not going to disappear anytime soon, so there
will
always be a lot of people familiar with it, as wall as tool for it.
So I think it would be reasonable to have <tag/> syntax and HTML tags
like <B>, <I> etc.
Also, for example, what if I want to put extra ')' paren into $(D text)?
I think there is (simple) solution, but that is one more thing to learn.
In the end it's just markup language and I don't see much use in
learning
more then one of them.
One reason of it I can think of: parsing speed and ambiguities (same as
with <templates>)
Anyway, when D will take over the world, they will have to change HTML
syntax to fit what everyone already knows )
One reason is why HTML is not used directly is that you could output
the documentation in other formats than HTML, like PDF. A second
reason to use macros (i.e. $(B arg)) instead of HTML is that this
allows you to have the macro expand into something like this <span
class="bold">arg</span> instead of <b>arg<b>. Of course one could
define a language in XML to use instead of the macros.
Does ddoc output in pdf? And besides, most of the tags *are* html tags,
they're even the same tag name. I can't imagine there's no htmltopdf
program that would do exactly that.
The reason they're the same is that the docs were originally written in
html. The original conversion to ddoc was done via search and replace.
One of the HUGE benefits of ddoc is that it does highlighting of the D
code. That instantly saved Walter a lot of time.
Seriously, converting it to ddoc did improve productivity.
