On Sunday, 8 May 2016 at 22:22:08 UTC, Peter Häggman wrote:
On Sunday, 8 May 2016 at 17:19:05 UTC, qznc wrote:
On Sunday, 8 May 2016 at 06:05:36 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Thanks, I missed that post until now.
"the documentation not matching the actual code is a bad
experience for someone new to the language"
I would interpret that as a sign that we want multiple
versions of documentation available on the website. For
example, Python does that.
You've quoted the wrong part of the paragraph. The real problem
he encountered was not the doc, it was the phobos bugs in the
older version shipped with GDC/LDC:
"For GDC, which I used to compile my code due to LDC having
bugs at that time, this means that it is shipping with a very
outdated copy of Phobos"
The the doc thing is "just" a symptom. Older offline doc is
always available in the release archive, it's easy to
understand that so it's not the actual problem.
You are correct, but can this be solved? Newer Phobos versions
fix bugs. GDC needs a newer Phobos? Well, this is translated into
GDC needs more manpower. Everything does. Nothing new.