On Sunday, 26 April 2015 at 20:45:32 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 4/26/2015 11:38 AM, Baz wrote:
Hi, is it worth documenting stdc ?
No. In general, D should not be re-documenting APIs where the
documentation exists elsewhere, because:
1. have to rewrite it because of copyright
2. such rewrites introduce errors and ambiguities
3. documentation always gets out of date
4. a user would be foolish to use re-documentation rather than
the official documentation
5. our time is much better expended on more productive things.
I'm about to copy all the docs from offical sources, e.g
http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cctype/.
There's been a post from W.B a few weeks ago about
undocumented sources.
I don't remember if it included stdc.
It doesn't include API interfaces.
Thanks for asking before doing the work. I'd sure hate for you
to expend a lot of effort on this only to have it rejected. We
can't afford to waste effort like that.
Well, i should have waited because i've started and now i realize
it wouldn't be human to do that in one shot anyway.
By the way, the stdc ddoc headers include some invalid addresses,
e.g:
pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/_ctype.h.html
while it seems to be now:
pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/ctype.h
