Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 14:26:48 -0400, Don <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: > >> Steven Schveighoffer wrote: >>> 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. > > Oh, I totally agree for the code samples. And some of the other macros > like $(V1). > > But the manual markup, like marking every paragraph like this: > > $(P This is some text that is in a paragraph, and for some reason, we > need a special > tag for it instead of using <p>, one that is hard to find the > closing > tag for, because every tag's closing tag is simply a lone close > parentheses > like this:) > > doesn't really make much difference than using <p>...</p>. The advantage > of using html tags for formatting like this means editors will recognize > tags, and everyone and their mother knows what html tags look like. > > -Steve
One trick that can work wonders here is treating ddoc as lisp code, most editors are very helpful with that.
