"Walter Bright" <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:i3i2m7$i9...@digitalmars.com...
>
> But the editor I use (microemacs) has a fabulous feature, F3, which finds
> the matching ( { [ < > ] } ) #ifdef/#elif/#else/#endif when the cursor is
> placed on one of those. It makes it utterly trivial to find the mismatch.
>
Many editors will automatically highlight a match/mismatch without even
pressing a key. For instance, I use Programmer's Notepad 2: Even
out-of-the-box, if you place the cursor on a ( { [ ] } ), in a ddoc comment
or anywhere else, then both that character and the matching one will turn
bold and blue. If there isn't a matching one, then the one under the cursor
turns bold and red. That's helped me many times.
> BTW, back when the doc was in HTML, it was absolutely rife with mismatched
> HTML open and close tags. The fact that browsers would render it anyway I
> did not regard as a feature.
My opinion on that has changed somewhat over the years. Originally, my
opinion was "Huh? That seems dumb." Now I consider it one of the stupidest,
most colossal, and most painful blunders of the 1990's.
>
> The other feature of the macro method is, obviously, that they can be
> customized to generate all sorts of things. I believe that candydoc relies
> on that.
Many web monkeys would probably argue "That's what CSS is for!" But, of
course, CSS is shit for layouts. Doubly-so for non-fixed-width layouts.
About the only thing it doesn't suck for is formatting, but even that could
be better (ex: Is there *any* consistent logic to what's "font-" and what's
"text-"?).
And I'll see your "HTML/XML syntax is a horrid verbose mess", and raise you
a "(X)HTML's shittiness extends far beyond the syntax."
