On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 01:55:35 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > On Friday 06 August 2010 20:06:59 Bernard Helyer wrote: >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:22:53 -0700, Walter Bright wrote: >> > 1. Being a defined part of D means it's ALWAYS there. That means >> > there won't be D compilers without ddoc. >> >> /me waves. >> >> I'm writing a D compiler, and have zero plans to add DDoc support. I >> couldn't do it well enough for me to waste my time on it. > > Well, that's your choice, but then you haven't followed the D spec in > that regard, so your compiler wouldn't be properly standard D.
Nope. But it doesn't matter. It doesn't affect the code built or generated, and that's my focus -- at least for the foreseeable future. I'm writing a compiler, not a half-arsed documentation generator (because if I wrote the DDoc stuff, that's exactly what it would be).