On Jun 30, 11 22:31, Adam Ruppe wrote:
KennyTM~ wrote:
Right. I agree this is one disadvantage in authoring the document.
Although, in terms of readability, this is much better than
$(TABLE
$(TR
$(TH Header)
$(TH Header2)
Note that textual macros can do a *lot* better than this. If we
take advantage of recursive template expansion....
======
$ cat test73.d
/**
$(TABLE
$(HEADERS Something, Something Else, Something To End)
$(ROW This is it, So is this, And the third)
$(ROW This is it, So is this, And the third)
$(ROW This is it, So is this, And the third))
Macros:
TABLE=<table>$0</table>
TH=<th>$1</th>$(TH $+)
HEADERS=<tr>$(TH $1, $+)</tr>
TD=<td>$1</td>$(TD $+)
ROW=<tr>$(TD $1, $+)</tr>
*/
$ dmd -D test73.d
$ cat test73.html
<table> <tr><th>Something</th><th>Something Else</th><th>Something To
End</th></tr>
<tr><td> This is it</td><td>So is this</td><td>And the
third</td></tr>
<tr><td> This is it</td><td>So is this</td><td>And the
third</td></tr>
<tr><td> This is it</td><td>So is this</td><td>And the
third</td></tr></table>
=======
That's fairly readable in source and generates the html needed,
that looks pretty decent.
The default ddoc macros need more work than ddoc itself IMO.
Interesting trick! Thanks. Indeed the default DDoc macros are not very
good, e.g. having no inline code format ($(D x) in Phobos), and relying
on the presentational aspect of HTML (e.g. DDOC_BUGS = $(RED
BUGS:)$(BR)$0$(BR)$(BR)), etc.
