On 2016-06-04 18:10, Seb wrote:
More than two and half years ago, Sönke added ddox builds for the Phobos
documentation. We all know that there are many reasons for ddox - being
able to generate single pages for methods is just one, it also
eliminates all the JavaScript hacks (e.g. the quickindex
On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 at 13:40:57 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 6/13/16 9:41 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 at 00:31:56 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Walter or Jan should be able to do that. But I'm confused as
to how
NNTP groups would help here.
It would al
On 6/13/16 9:41 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 at 00:31:56 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Walter or Jan should be able to do that. But I'm confused as to how
NNTP groups would help here.
It would allow people to subscribe and reply to comments using their
newsreader (o
On 6/13/16 9:42 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 at 00:27:21 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
How would we estimate the intersection between folks who do want to
ask a question, and folks who are ideologically opposed to signing up
with disqus? Also, we need to be careful ab
On 6/13/16 9:41 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 at 00:31:56 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Walter or Jan should be able to do that. But I'm confused as to how
NNTP groups would help here.
It would allow people to subscribe and reply to comments using their
newsreader (o
On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 at 01:57:44 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
(though I personally think comments in documentation should
typically be used to just go back and improve the documentation
rather than making readers actually wade through the
out-of-date and repetitive comment thread...)
+1
Also
On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 at 01:42:26 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the above consideration excludes
the people who are capable of answering questions.
Yeah, I'm not likely to ever use disqus but if it went through
the same n.g./mailing list interface at least I'd c
On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 at 00:27:21 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
How would we estimate the intersection between folks who do
want to ask a question, and folks who are ideologically opposed
to signing up with disqus? Also, we need to be careful about
the influence of our personal beliefs on
On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 at 00:31:56 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Walter or Jan should be able to do that. But I'm confused as to
how NNTP groups would help here.
It would allow people to subscribe and reply to comments using
their newsreader (or by email, if it's also associated with a
ma
On 06/11/2016 03:28 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Saturday, 11 June 2016 at 19:20:56 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 6/11/16 12:31 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Are_you_ going to spend time going through every single page in the
documentation, looking to see whether someo
On 06/11/2016 09:02 AM, Martin Nowak wrote:
On 06/10/2016 07:33 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm a bit bummed about that. I like it. Is my understanding incorrect
that disqus is fairly established by now?
You need to create an account with a pay-by-data company to even post
something.
How
On Saturday, 11 June 2016 at 19:20:56 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 6/11/16 12:31 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Are_you_ going to spend time going through every single page
in the
documentation, looking to see whether someone asked a question
and then
reply to them if the
On 6/11/16 12:31 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Are_you_ going to spend time going through every single page in the
documentation, looking to see whether someone asked a question and then
reply to them if they did?
I get notified by disqus for new posts. The basic idea is if we
On 06/11/2016 02:24 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I'm fine with generating the docs with ddox if that works better, but I sure
> hope that we're not going to then change how we're doing the actual
> documenattion in the source files except that if ddox is smart enough that
> we do
On 06/11/2016 02:31 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> > > But the problem is, people will ask questions on these forums, and
>>> > > likely will not get answers.
>> >
>> > Why not? -- Andrei
> Are _you_ going to spend time going through every single page in the
> documentation, look
On Saturday, 11 June 2016 at 12:31:28 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I really don't see how it's tractable to have hundreds (if not
thousands) of pages on dlang.org where someone could ask a
question.
Wouldn't that be solved by automatically posting the question to
Learn with a link?
On 06/10/2016 07:33 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> I'm a bit bummed about that. I like it. Is my understanding incorrect
> that disqus is fairly established by now?
You need to create an account with a pay-by-data company to even post
something.
On 06/11/2016 03:02 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
> On 06/10/2016 07:33 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> I'm a bit bummed about that. I like it. Is my understanding incorrect
>> that disqus is fairly established by now?
>
> You need to create an account with a pay-by-data company to even post
> somethi
On Saturday, June 11, 2016 08:45:08 Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On 6/10/16 5:46 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> > On 6/10/16 1:33 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >> On 6/10/16 3:17 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
> >>> I'd want to disable or replace discourse before we make it our of
On Saturday, June 11, 2016 08:48:53 Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On 6/11/16 5:16 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> > On Friday, 10 June 2016 at 17:33:01 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >> I should add that it would be valuable to keep the ddoc build as well.
> >
> > We need DDoc
On 6/11/16 5:16 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Friday, 10 June 2016 at 17:33:01 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I should add that it would be valuable to keep the ddoc build as well.
We need DDoc anyway for the website itself, as well as formats other
than the website (e.g. CHM and HTML file
On 6/10/16 5:46 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 6/10/16 1:33 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 6/10/16 3:17 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
I'd want to disable or replace discourse before we make it our official
documentation. We could easily self-host some commenting functionality
if deemed necessa
On Friday, 10 June 2016 at 17:33:01 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I should add that it would be valuable to keep the ddoc build
as well.
We need DDoc anyway for the website itself, as well as formats
other than the website (e.g. CHM and HTML files distributed with
the compiler), so it's not
On 6/10/16 1:33 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 6/10/16 3:17 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
I'd want to disable or replace discourse before we make it our official
documentation. We could easily self-host some commenting functionality
if deemed necessary, but adding an unmaintained communication chan
On 6/10/16 3:17 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
On 06/04/2016 09:32 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Sounds good to me, thanks. Delegation/lieutenantship/empowering for the
win. I think we should also secure Martin's buy-in to make sure. -- Andrei
I'm fine with switching to ddox, could have happened a w
On 06/04/2016 08:23 PM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> I think they have. Vladimir has reported a bunch of them over time and
> all of those have been fixed.
Found a new one ;).
[Issue 16152 – dpl-docs/ddox doesn't show documentation for eponymous
template member](https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1
On 06/04/2016 09:32 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Sounds good to me, thanks. Delegation/lieutenantship/empowering for the
> win. I think we should also secure Martin's buy-in to make sure. -- Andrei
I'm fine with switching to ddox, could have happened a while ago.
Would be worth to switch for t
On 06/05/2016 11:21 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> I found a minor issue recently. If there's more than one symbol in the
> same module with the same name but with different casing, all these
> symbols are shown on the same "single symbol page". Not sure if that's
> solvable due to some operating syst
On Sunday, 5 June 2016 at 15:45:11 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I would point out that removing /phobos/ will break links
elsewhere online. For instance, I know that I've linked to the
documentation on numerous occasions in posts in the newsgroup
and in answers on stackoverflow. All of those wi
On Saturday, June 04, 2016 18:33:40 Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Saturday, 4 June 2016 at 16:10:14 UTC, Seb wrote:
> > Imho it's quite impressive that he still pushes the project and
> > as Adam
> > correctly said - we need to make a decision and have a clear
> > deadline like
On Saturday, 4 June 2016 at 19:32:33 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 6/4/16 2:33 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
[...]
Sounds good to me, thanks. Delegation/lieutenantship/empowering
for the win. I think we should also secure Martin's buy-in to
make sure. -- Andrei
Nice idea! Maybe we can
On 04/06/16 18:10, Seb wrote:
We got the MREF change into Phobos a month ago and Sönke has fixed the
last blocking bug with ddox (broken source code links) a couple of days
ago.
I found a minor issue recently. If there's more than one symbol in the
same module with the same name but with diff
On 6/4/16 2:33 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Saturday, 4 June 2016 at 16:10:14 UTC, Seb wrote:
Imho it's quite impressive that he still pushes the project and as Adam
correctly said - we need to make a decision and have a clear deadline
like 2.072 will be the last documentation build with ddo
On 6/4/16 2:23 PM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Am 04.06.2016 um 19:01 schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
I recall there were a few issues with ddox rendering up until relatively
recently, have all been fixed?
I think they have. Vladimir has reported a bunch of them over time and
all of those have been fixe
On Saturday, 4 June 2016 at 16:10:14 UTC, Seb wrote:
Imho it's quite impressive that he still pushes the project and
as Adam
correctly said - we need to make a decision and have a clear
deadline like 2.072 will be the last documentation build with
ddoc, once it's released we will remove the ddo
Am 04.06.2016 um 19:01 schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
I recall there were a few issues with ddox rendering up until relatively
recently, have all been fixed?
I think they have. Vladimir has reported a bunch of them over time and
all of those have been fixed.
I don't see these options mutuall
On 06/04/2016 07:25 PM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
I think ideally we could do something like introducing a special
"Cheatsheet" section or macro for each function that DDOX could
aggregate or use instead of the normal short description. Also
interesting (although less so since we started using sub modu
Am 04.06.2016 um 19:18 schrieb ag0aep6g:
On 06/04/2016 07:01 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
* The cheat sheet made sense for the single-page docs but not for the
new ones. Consider e.g.
http://dlang.org/library/std/algorithm/comparison.html - it's two tables
with the same row headings one after
On 06/04/2016 07:01 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
* The cheat sheet made sense for the single-page docs but not for the
new ones. Consider e.g.
http://dlang.org/library/std/algorithm/comparison.html - it's two tables
with the same row headings one after another. The information should be
consoli
On 06/04/2016 12:10 PM, Seb wrote:
More than two and half years ago, Sönke added ddox builds for the Phobos
documentation. We all know that there are many reasons for ddox - being
able to generate single pages for methods is just one, it also
eliminates all the JavaScript hacks (e.g. the quickind
More than two and half years ago, Sönke added ddox builds for the
Phobos documentation. We all know that there are many reasons for
ddox - being able to generate single pages for methods is just
one, it also eliminates all the JavaScript hacks (e.g. the
quickindex menu, anchors, ...) that we ha
41 matches
Mail list logo
