On Sunday, May 26, 2013 00:32:01 Walter Bright wrote: > On 5/25/2013 10:34 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > My main complaint about ddoc is actually not a complaint about ddoc but > > about html. I find it very annoying to have to put $(P ) around every > > paragraph. Stuff like LaTeX does that automatically based on blank lines, > > which is way better IMHO, but if you're targetting HTML, then > > unfortunately, you need to mark paragraphs. The only way to fix that with > > regards to ddoc would be to make it so that ddoc understood that blank > > lines meant new paragraphs and inserted <p></p> appropriately, when > > generating html, but that would make it so that ddoc was less general, > > and there might be other negatives to that I haven't thought of. So, we > > just get to deal with $(P ) I guess. > > The issue with implied paragraph breaks is that then ddoc would have to get > a lot smarter to avoid putting $(P ) around everything with a blank lines, > and then you are already down the path of creating a markup language, not a > macro language.
Which is why I'm not pushing for any changes in that regard. For some of the stuff that I'm writing in ddoc right now, I considered having the program that does the build add the $(P) macros for me but decided that it was better to just suck it up and use $(P) rather than risk problems with code blocks with blank lines in them and whatnot (I'm using a D program to do the build because it's easier than writing makefile, and I needed a program to generate the table of contents and index anyway, since ddoc can't do that). So, I'm not sure what the best solution with regards to $(P) is, and for the moment, it looks like it's just better to put up with it, but it does end up being my #1 annoyance when dealing with ddoc. - Jonathan M Davis
