On 12/29/2014 4:45 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Not to mention that as it stands, ddoc is only really convenient for
HTML output; while it's certainly *possible* to target it for
non-HTML output, it's a pain.
More correctly, Ddoc works well for any markup that has a
fundamentally nested structure. LaTeX does not.
That's not true; LaTeX supports nested structures quite well.
'Supports' is not the same thing as 'is' a nested structure.
But at least you can make it work with LaTeX. Whatcha gonna do with
Markdown?
Again, I wasn't defending Markdown.
Then I'm a bit lost on what the point of complaining about Ddoc is. Are you
arguing that Ddoc should implement LaTeX?
The only way to get it right is to turn your ddoc comments into tag
soup. Are you seriously suggesting that we have to write ddoc tag soup
while coding? Or that we first write in plain text then go back
afterwards and wrap every paragraph in $(P ...) macros? The only reason
zero source code changes were required, was because the ddoc comments
were already written with the requisite tag soup to begin with. Which is
OK, if that's the "correct" way to use ddoc... but in that case, the
page on dlang.org that describes ddoc should be revised to not give the
false impression that you can just write documentation comments in plain
text format and expect to get nice output from it.
I think this is an unfair critique. The blank lines separating paragraphs work
fine.
Ddoc is not intended to be LaTeX. That it can't do everything a professional
typesetting language can is not remarkable, no other markup language can, either.
