On Friday, 16 September 2016 at 21:02:26 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Friday, 16 September 2016 at 20:25:33 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
The advantage of ddoc is generating documentation from that file with a single call to dmd.

dmd could just as well call executeShell as another program.

dependencies, you either have to include it with DMD or allow the documentation to break as soon as someone adds an equation.

No, then it will just fallback to what it does today.

That is what my program already does: if latex isn't available (if the call to executeShell fails), it outputs the plain text, which can still be processed by Javascript if you wish. You've lost nothing by trying to produce the image and gained a lot of convenience for the author and usability for the reader if it does work. dmd can do exactly the same thing.

Y'all are letting the nonexistent perfect be the enemy of the easily implemented good.

But then you introduce other problems:

- Inconsistency in the output when you change machines or when you build someone else's program if only one has latex installed.
- Different latex configurations will give different output.
- All machines might have latex installed but not the right packages, or the package versions can be different.
- Not all of latex is supported by the Javascript implementations.

It would open a big can of worms to do this. I've run into so many problems trying to collaborate with coauthors using latex over the years. Rarely can you send a latex file to someone else and not run into issues. This is fine for a third-party tool but not for DMD.

Reply via email to