On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Jordi Boggiano <j.boggi...@seld.be> wrote: > On 12.08.2013 23:58, Graydon Hoare wrote: >> On 13-08-12 02:06 PM, Daniel Micay wrote: >> >>> I don't think it makes sense to switch from pandoc. It's more >>> featureful than the other generators, and has many supported output >>> formats. The perceived popularity is much less important than >>> quantifiable differences between the alternatives. >> >> Yeah, I'd prefer we don't change the doc format on a whim. >> >> Most pandoc-supported extensions are either common across markdown >> implementations or not-used in rust docs. If you find particularly >> troubling ones we can evaluate them / remove them on a case by case >> basis. Which ones are you running into? > > Valid points. I'd just rather not have to defer to an external process > for every small piece of markdown we render during the build. But let's > see if there is anything critical that is not supported by the lib I'm > using now, and if so I'll add a pandoc renderer. > > I still don't know *what* is problematic at the moment though. Anyway > this can be adjusted later. It's not really a show-stopper right now if > a couple docblocks appear funny I think? > > Cheers > > -- > Jordi Boggiano > @seldaek - http://nelm.io/jordi
It's not at all a big deal, but the documentation generator will determine the documentation syntax we use due to being the defacto standard. _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
