On 1/5/2013 1:38 PM, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
It is a strange sublanguage. It has its problems, but compared to what D
documentation was like before Ddoc, it is a HUGE and incalculable leap
forward.
I was just wondering if there was a way to make it a bit more D-ish. The $(NAME
arg, arg) syntax feels like I'm entering another land when I have to use it.
You are entering another land with it. Text processing is totally different, and
it should be different.
And, btw, I have published on Amazon a couple of non-tech ebooks. I used
Ddoc for them, and there is no html feel to the result. They look like any
other ebook.
Do you have any macro to present? They could be used by other people, as an
example of Ddoc power.
They aren't really much different from the website macros. In fact, the D ebook
is created out of the same source files the website is. The macros to do it are
all in github.
Also, it would be nice to present the article from the website as .d files with
Ddoc macros. They are only accessible as HTML (that's the end goal, yes, but
having them as .d files would be good).
Also, Phobos/index.d is sadly in HTML, not in Ddoc.
All those source files are on github.
