On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 12:16:56PM -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 1/9/13 12:13 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> >On 1/9/2013 12:03 PM, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
> >>That's not what I'm talking about, sorry for not being clear. I don't
> >>care for the origin of the data, obviously. I meant a D module, not a
> >>file specifically. My question was if the data is a D module (code +
> >>comments), should it just expand macros? Or should it generate a
> >>documentation?
> >
> >The current ddoc macro system does recognize D code. This should be
> >removed from a generic macro system.
>
> Yah, the "----" etc. I was thinking it would be nice to have some of
> that functionality, too.
[...]
I think the D-specific parts (or even documentation-specific parts, like
the syntax for sections) should be done separately. Maybe something
like this:
// In the generic macro module
R expandMacros(I,R)(I inputRange, string[string] macroDefs) { ...}
// In a doc-specific module
R extractDocComments(I,R)(I inputRange) { ... }
R processDocSections(I,R)(I inputRange) { ... }
// In main app
R generateDdoc(I,R)(I inputRange, string[string] macroDefs) {
// UFCS FTW!
return inputRange.extractDocComments()
.expandMacros(macroDefs)
.processDocSections();
}
T
--
Your inconsistency is the only consistent thing about you! -- KD
