On Sunday 06 February 2011 17:25:02 Jonathan M Davis wrote: > On Sunday 06 February 2011 17:08:35 Rainer Schuetze wrote: > > Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > > Do _not_ expect your code to work if you compile with ddoc enabled. > > > > That's what I was afraid of ;-) The dmd command line interface suggests > > that you could do so, and so does Visual D. I'd hate to do have to split > > it into two commands, as this will probably double the compilation time. > > There's too much that has to be special cased for ddoc to be used for a > normal build. For instance, if you want the documentation to be able to > build on multiple platforms (which unfortunately, Phobos wasn't doing, but > some of it now is), you _have_ to have a separate version(D_Ddoc) section > in many cases. Also, in cases where you want to be able to clean up the > documentation (std.algorithm would be a good candidate, for instance), you > may be forced to have a separate, simplified version just for ddoc > generation. So, ultimately, it just doesn't work to build the > documentation as part of a normal build. However, it _is_ a mistake that I > expect that many people will make. _I_ made it before I came to better > understand the situation. But it quickly becomes obvious once you have > code which is OS-specific, and you want to the same docs to be generated > on all OSes. > > On the bright side, ddoc builds will generally be faster than other builds > because many of the functions will be stubs (at least, if the code in > question uses version(D_Ddoc) at all like Phobos does).
I've create an enhancement request for -D to not generae an executable - or at the very least that the dmd documentation would make it clear that -D won't necessarily generate valid code. - Jonathan m Davis _______________________________________________ dmd-beta mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
