Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-02-02 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 1/31/16 6:14 AM, Rory McGuire via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: If you don't get a cease and desist letter from the D Foundation soon I'd be surprised. Please. Let's take this a notch or three down. -- Andrei

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-02-01 Thread Chris Wright via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 10:03:25 +0200, Rory McGuire via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > The problem is the D logo etc at the top of his docs mixed with Adam's > resentment. Your email validates what I was suggesting he should avoid. My newsreader's history doesn't support your memory of events.

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-02-01 Thread Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Monday, 1 February 2016 at 20:14:42 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Monday, 1 February 2016 at 20:01:11 UTC, Chris Wright wrote: What I would actually expect, instead of a C letter, is a set of guidelines for using the D logo and other trademarked material. That's pretty standard for

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-02-01 Thread Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Monday, 1 February 2016 at 20:01:11 UTC, Chris Wright wrote: What I would actually expect, instead of a C letter, is a set of guidelines for using the D logo and other trademarked material. That's pretty standard for open source projects. And if those guidelines forbad using the D logo for

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-02-01 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Monday, 1 February 2016 at 20:01:11 UTC, Chris Wright wrote: My newsreader's history doesn't support your memory of events. I don't think this is worth arguing over...

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-02-01 Thread Rory McGuire via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Chris Wright via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > > On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 13:14:08 +0200, Rory McGuire via > Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > > > If you don't get a cease and desist letter from the D Foundation soon > > I'd be

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-02-01 Thread Rory McGuire via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 11:14:08 UTC, Rory McGuire wrote: >> >> If you don't get a cease and desist letter from the D Foundation soon I'd >> be surprised. > > >

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-02-01 Thread Rory McGuire via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Chris Wright via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 10:03:25 +0200, Rory McGuire via > Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > >> The problem is the D logo etc at the top of his docs mixed with Adam's >> resentment.

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-31 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 17:54:41 UTC, Chris Wright wrote: It's not a division. It's a documentation mirror with a different layout. Well, there are a few content changes too. You can see my diff as it develops here: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3895 (I'll

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-31 Thread Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 12/30/2015 08:32 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: It was rejected. Walter didn't see what the problem was and I was told to just write $(LT)span$(GT)foo$(LT)/span$(GT). Seriously. [...] The idea (and working program) was rejected because the team felt a post-processor was the wrong way to do it.

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-31 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 11:14:08 UTC, Rory McGuire wrote: If you don't get a cease and desist letter from the D Foundation soon I'd be surprised. http://forum.dlang.org/post/n5sf7o$mu1$2...@digitalmars.com Andrei isn't exactly enthusiastic (though later on, he softens a bit), but I'm

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-31 Thread Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 2016-01-30 21:58, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: If you go into a thing: http://dpldocs.info/experimental-docs/std.stdio.write.html "extern (C) nothrow" is repeated a couple of times. -- /Jacob Carlborg

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-31 Thread Rory McGuire via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce < digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote: > Just want to update y'all that my better docs continue to improve with > each passing week. > > I just did a style facelift on the members section: > >

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-31 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 07:40:49 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: One trick is to set the width and clipping on "dt > *" instead of "dt", and use "calc(...)" for dynamic sizes. I considered that too, but since I wanted the dt to float, the width had to be set there.

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-31 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 13:11:54 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: "extern (C) nothrow" is repeated a couple of times. Yeah, those shouldn't be there at all on this function. I probably bugged the removal of attributes when moving up a scope or something.

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-30 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Saturday, 30 January 2016 at 21:22:02 UTC, Chris Wright wrote: You probably know about this, but some of the source code formatting is a little off (and allowing javascript / cross-site requests doesn't help). Right, the contract formatter is something I started a while ago but not

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-30 Thread Chris Wright via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 20:58:44 +, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: > Just want to update y'all that my better docs continue to improve with > each passing week. > > I just did a style facelift on the members section: > > http://dpldocs.info/experimental-docs/std.algorithm.setops.html Oh god, that's

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-30 Thread Bastiaan Veelo via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Saturday, 30 January 2016 at 20:58:44 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: In my new members thing, I used a small, hoverable prototype... Nice. Slight layout problem: when the browser width is set less than the max line width, hovering will add a white bar to the right of the page, maybe 20px wide.

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-30 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Saturday, 30 January 2016 at 22:08:55 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote: Nice. Slight layout problem: when the browser width is set less than the max line width, hovering will add a white bar to the right of the page, maybe 20px wide. Yeah, I know. I want it to be the width of the container's

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-30 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Saturday, 30 January 2016 at 22:37:18 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: I know quite a few css tricks... but I don't think I can actually do this without adding a script or something, so I just put an arbitrary fixed width on hover for now. Meh, I just did it with JavaScript, so if you enable

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-30 Thread Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Saturday, 30 January 2016 at 22:37:18 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: I know quite a few css tricks... but I don't think I can actually do this without adding a script or something, so I just put an arbitrary fixed width on hover for now. One trick is to set the width and clipping on "dt > *"

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-07 Thread Bastiaan Veelo via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thursday, 7 January 2016 at 13:38:20 UTC, anonymous wrote: We have this already. Top right corner, "Improve this page". People are using the feature occasionally. My first experience with this: 1) Seems to work well enough initially, if you can do without a preview. 2) Then the request

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-07 Thread anonymous via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 08.01.2016 00:13, Bastiaan Veelo wrote: My first experience with this: [...] Fixing these small documentation errors took more than an hour of my time. I just hope the PR can be merged before it needs rebasing again ;-) The master plan here is to get you invested in D. You just spent a

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-07 Thread anonymous via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 07.01.2016 14:31, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Here's a simple idea we can implement rather quickly. Say a user is browsing https://dlang.org/builtin.html and find a typo. They press a button labeled "Fix typo". That opens

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-07 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 1/7/16 2:14 AM, Rory McGuire via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: I wonder; would it be possible to make the website inline editable and then it automatically creates github pull requests that update the docs in github as D comments? Ha. I just posted about that! -- Andrei

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-07 Thread default0 via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thursday, 7 January 2016 at 13:31:57 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 1/6/16 1:54 AM, default0 wrote: In the end most of this comes down to a lack of motivation: I'm fine trying to improve documentation text if I see an issue about it, but if that entails stopping what I was originally

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-07 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thursday, 7 January 2016 at 06:30:28 UTC, Rory McGuire wrote: If not a tagging system then at least adding synonyms would be great. dpldocs.info actually had this in its first version, way back in 2010, because so many people would ask me these kinds of things. In the first draft, I did

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-06 Thread Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 2016-01-05 15:18, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: There's been a recent discussion with Walter and Martin about using wildcards in makefiles (which would obviate the necessity of being explicit about files). My understanding is that build scripts (including makefiles) are recommended to include

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-06 Thread Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 2016-01-06 05:29, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: I actually do NOT use wildcards in most of my own makefiles for exactly these reasons, I tend to keep dead files around. "git ls-files" should take care of that. -- /Jacob Carlborg

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-06 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Wednesday, 6 January 2016 at 10:25:50 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: We already have a nice and powerful documentation generator called ddox. You say that like I've never hard of it before, when I've spent quite a few words over the last ten days writing up my critiques of it, including both

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-06 Thread Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 2015-12-28 21:15, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: Last week, I posted in the general forum my dream for better D docs. Today, about 4 days of work later, I'm about 1/4 of the way there. Still a long way to go, but I've already come so far. First, behold my old dpldocs.info site. Yes, it is still up

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-06 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 01/06/2016 07:27 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2016-01-06 05:29, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: I actually do NOT use wildcards in most of my own makefiles for exactly these reasons, I tend to keep dead files around. "git ls-files" should take care of that. Thanks, Jacob I think this is a great

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-06 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 01/06/2016 08:50 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: druntime already uses wildcards [1], if I read the makefile correctly, in some places. Yes, it recently caused Walter some headache because he had a stray file. I think your git ls-files idea would work a lot better. -- Andrei

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-06 Thread Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 2016-01-06 17:37, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: The remaining issue is that that makes the makefile assume git is installed. Is that reasonable? I think so at least. -- /Jacob Carlborg

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-06 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 01/05/2016 01:34 PM, JohnCK wrote: On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 18:09:57 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Is the recent http://wiki.dlang.org/Contributing_to_dlang.org along the lines of what you need? What other sort of documentation would you find useful? I took a look at that link, and

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-06 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Wednesday, 6 January 2016 at 17:10:01 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: BTW, do you know of Harbored [1] Yes, I wrote about it in the TWiD link in the snipped section of the parent post. In fact, until Monday, my generator actually imported a few modules directly from Harbored to handle things

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-06 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 18:09:57 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Again this goes back to Adam. It occurs to me, looking at the status quo, that a single point of failure is more robust than several points of failure in series. /library/ depends on the dlang.org, Phobos, and ddox.

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-06 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Wednesday, 6 January 2016 at 16:37:24 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: The remaining issue is that that makes the makefile assume git is installed. Is that reasonable? I hate to be the one to say this, but I don't think it is reasonable in the packaged release. In the dev version,

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-06 Thread Rory McGuire via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d-announce < digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, 6 January 2016 at 15:41:29 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: > >> I know projects get bugs open when they are used, but ddox is a >> one-person project and that one

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-06 Thread Rory McGuire via Digitalmars-d-announce
I wonder; would it be possible to make the website inline editable and then it automatically creates github pull requests that update the docs in github as D comments? On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Rory McGuire wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Martin Nowak

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-06 Thread Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Wednesday, 6 January 2016 at 15:41:29 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: I know projects get bugs open when they are used, but ddox is a one-person project and that one person doesn't seem terribly active in it. I'm another user of ddox and fix things when they annoy me. I don't have many problems

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-05 Thread Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 2016-01-05 01:23, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: ddox makes an attempt at inheritance linking, but I'm trying to go further. If I'm successful in my dream, it will list overridden methods in the docs nicely too. But that's still a ways away. I suggest showing only links to inherited members, not the

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-05 Thread Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 2016-01-05 01:23, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: First, I need to re-add the features I dropped in the refactoring (compare the above with this: http://dpldocs.info/experimental-docs/std.socket.UdpSocket.html ) "Address" not being cross-linked here [1] while "SocketOSException" is. [1]

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-05 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 08:31:55 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: "Address" not being cross-linked here [1] while "SocketOSException" is. thanks! That's one I missed in the Phobos source code.

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-05 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 08:12:56 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: I suggest showing only links to inherited members, not the docs for them. What I want to show is the links plus just the first excerpt of the docs, so you have an idea what it is aside from the name without taking up a lot of

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-05 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 01/05/2016 12:09 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: 1) a massively simplified build. Indeed, I'll make a web form so you don't even have to have dmd installed to make some docs. Nice. The web forms sound like a great idea. This got posted today: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15516#c2

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-05 Thread default0 via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 15:54:24 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 01/05/2016 10:15 AM, bachmeier wrote: The problem is not that my PR was (for practical purposes) rejected. As an academic I deal with both sides of peer review all the time. The problem is that I was forced to put so

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-05 Thread Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 2016-01-05 15:18, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: That said, in a git-controlled directory things aren't that bad. "git clean -dfx" removes uncontrolled files and "git checkout" makes sure all files are present. Would you recommend switching to wildcards in our makefiles and assume people use git

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-05 Thread Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 2016-01-05 15:16, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: Interesting. Separating abstract is definitely a good idea since you kinda need to know that to implement. I would really like to be able to write documentation for private methods as well, but hide them by default. I think it can be good when one

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-05 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 16:06:17 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: I would really like to be able to write documentation for private methods as well, but hide them by default. I think it can be good when one is working on the implementation of a library. Right. In my thing, it is controlled

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-05 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 15:51:56 UTC, Nordlöw wrote: The mouse-over behaviour of CT- and RT-parameters is just really really cool! Thanks! Awesome! That's just a little javascript but I feel it kinda adds a fourth dimension (the other three being width, height, and *color* on a

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-05 Thread bachmeier via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 14:18:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Overall my understanding of your message is "My system would be better not for a fundamental technical reason, but because I am willing to pour in it time and talent." This is the kind of argument I have a lot of respect

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-05 Thread bachmeier via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 15:32:52 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 01/05/2016 10:15 AM, bachmeier wrote: There are some critical technical differences: - There is one person making the decision. Not technical. -- Andrei http://www.snopes.com/humor/letters/miriam.asp

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-05 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 01/05/2016 10:15 AM, bachmeier wrote: I read the documentation for schwartzSort, and finding that it conveyed no information, I wanted to suggest something better. A discussion forum or email message would be the ideal way to do so, but knowing that's not how things are done here, I decided

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-05 Thread JohnCK via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 15:32:52 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 01/05/2016 10:15 AM, bachmeier wrote: There are some critical technical differences: - There is one person making the decision. Not technical. -- Andrei Indeed but on the other hand is impacting the technical stuff.

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-05 Thread Nordlöw via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 15:43:30 UTC, Nordlöw wrote: This is awesome! I warmly welcome this approach. I just got a comment from a newbie D developer fellow who commented on the current unpleasant doc formatting of templated headers. The mouse-over behaviour of CT- and RT-parameters is

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-05 Thread Nordlöw via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Monday, 28 December 2015 at 20:15:30 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: Last week, I posted in the general forum my dream for better D docs. Today, about 4 days of work later, I'm about 1/4 of the way there. Still a long way to go, but I've already come so far. First, behold my old dpldocs.info

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-05 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 01/05/2016 10:15 AM, bachmeier wrote: There are some critical technical differences: - There is one person making the decision. Not technical. -- Andrei

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-05 Thread John Colvin via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 18:34:20 UTC, JohnCK wrote: On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 18:09:57 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Is the recent http://wiki.dlang.org/Contributing_to_dlang.org along the lines of what you need? What other sort of documentation would you find useful? I took a

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-05 Thread Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 18:09:57 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Again this goes back to Adam. Let's say we had a contributor Eve who'd gladly take emailed questions and suggestions and integrate them. Would that be as nice? Ohoh... Keep Eve out of it, she's got an Apple.

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-05 Thread bachmeier via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 18:09:57 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Again this goes back to Adam. Let's say we had a contributor Eve who'd gladly take emailed questions and suggestions and integrate them. Would that be as nice? Yes. But I would also be happy with something simpler. If

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-05 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 01/05/2016 11:35 AM, default0 wrote: Yes, and because its lots of effort flowing into something that D is usually very fond of: Simplicity. I'll be curious how the simplicity theme keeps when needed features get added. dlang.org started very simple and grew by accretion. I remember

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-05 Thread bachmeier via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 15:54:24 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: The text is imprecise, e.g. an equivalent call to `sort` really is `sort!((a, b) => less(transform(a), transform(b))`. All that detail needn't be present in the first paragraph, so there's a bit of an art in how you

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-05 Thread JohnCK via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 18:09:57 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Is the recent http://wiki.dlang.org/Contributing_to_dlang.org along the lines of what you need? What other sort of documentation would you find useful? I took a look at that link, and you know what would be (at least for

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-05 Thread Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 14:18:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Regarding PRs that are not looked at, we currently have 18 PRs at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pulls, and 16 folks who have the rights to pull them

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-05 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 14:18:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: There's been a recent discussion with Walter and Martin about using wildcards in makefiles (which would obviate the necessity of being explicit about files). I actually do NOT use wildcards in most of my own makefiles for

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-04 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Saturday, 2 January 2016 at 21:06:19 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: * cross-linking, including inherited members I got this working in simple cases... which happens to include Phobos' std.socket! http://dpldocs.info/experimental-docs-2/std.socket.UdpSocket.html I did a major refactoring of

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-04 Thread JohnCK via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Sunday, 3 January 2016 at 23:16:30 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: A few follow-up questions, all serious: Fair enough... but most of the points you're asking they already have been discussed all over the forums, and some in this topic, like those exposed by Adam. Like I said currently

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-04 Thread JohnCK via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Sunday, 3 January 2016 at 23:16:30 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: A few follow-up questions, all serious: Sorry, I just forgot an important thing. Somewhere in the beginning of this topic, you had advised Adam to put his efforts into another thing, right? So imagine this with: D vs C++

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-04 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
FYI, even now, I hesitate to change links in my Phobos fork because I kinda want to remain ddoc compatible... and I can never remember what macro it is. And I've been kinda deep in this the whole last week. Anyway, let's get into this: On Sunday, 3 January 2016 at 23:16:30 UTC, Andrei

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-03 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 1/2/16 2:31 PM, JohnCK wrote: On Wednesday, 30 December 2015 at 23:05:11 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: This huge friction has killed my desire to contribute to Phobos before and it looks like it is again. the difference is this time, I have my own fork so the community doesn't have to lose out.

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-02 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Friday, 1 January 2016 at 16:30:44 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote: In my eyes there are three important aspects to quality documentation: Let me summarize the benefits I see in my way for each of these three items: 1. Content For content, I'm making edits based on common questions I see.

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-02 Thread JohnCK via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Wednesday, 30 December 2015 at 23:05:11 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: This huge friction has killed my desire to contribute to Phobos before and it looks like it is again. the difference is this time, I have my own fork so the community doesn't have to lose out. Please keep the good work.

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-02 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Saturday, 2 January 2016 at 19:31:24 UTC, JohnCK wrote: But currently I'm looking to your project and maybe I could help there. Well, the generator core is almost stable now, so pretty soon we'll be moving on to the other things. If I can keep up my vacation pace, this would be set in

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2016-01-01 Thread Bastiaan Veelo via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Wednesday, 30 December 2015 at 04:03:42 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 12/29/2015 09:09 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: Putting one item per page is far more important than I even realized before getting into this. We already have that: https://dlang.org/library/std/array/join.html If I

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2015-12-31 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 12/30/2015 10:07 PM, bachmeier wrote: On Thursday, 31 December 2015 at 02:40:17 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I agree and I'm sorry we're not moving faster with reviews, but really that's not ddo(c|x)'s fault. Any chance you can respond to this question that I posted two days ago?

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2015-12-31 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thursday, 31 December 2015 at 06:39:27 UTC, Israel wrote: This is what hits me the most. Thats why we suggested "user contributed examples". PHP docs is the only place ive seen this. What is your stance on this and if you agree, how would you implement it? How would it work? I do not

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2015-12-30 Thread bachmeier via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thursday, 31 December 2015 at 02:40:17 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I agree and I'm sorry we're not moving faster with reviews, but really that's not ddo(c|x)'s fault. Any chance you can respond to this question that I posted two days ago?

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2015-12-30 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 12/30/2015 06:05 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: the difference is this time, I have my own fork so the community doesn't have to lose out. All I want is to make sure you know your reasons and assumptions. The assumption there isn't a Phobos documentation with item-per-page was wrong. It seems

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2015-12-30 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 12/30/2015 08:32 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: ~2010: I had just written this awesome dom.d library and wanted to document it and release it to the world. I write stuff like: /// Returns the text in the element. For example, innerText of foo is "foo" (without quotes) string innerText(); And it

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2015-12-30 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
BTW wouldn't it be great if the compiler's error messages showed each level of pass/fail for those constraints? For the docs, I don't mind doing a few special case, hand written things, but the compiler needs something a bit more generic. I think the way to code that is whenever the compiler

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2015-12-30 Thread default0 via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Wednesday, 30 December 2015 at 16:41:51 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: BTW wouldn't it be great if the compiler's error messages showed each level of pass/fail for those constraints? For the docs, I don't mind doing a few special case, hand written things, but the compiler needs something a bit

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2015-12-30 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Wednesday, 30 December 2015 at 15:51:23 UTC, default0 wrote: Yeah, I misinterpreted the "E : " to mean "E is or inherits from ", rechecking the argument deduction rules for templates I think this instead means "E should be deduced as ". Sort of.. it means "if E can be implicitly converted

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2015-12-30 Thread bachmeier via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Wednesday, 30 December 2015 at 23:05:11 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Monday, 28 December 2015 at 23:05:28 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: (a) is the new proposed system differentiated enough to justify its existence and motivate others to join in? I was just watching my newbie friend try

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2015-12-30 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Monday, 28 December 2015 at 23:05:28 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: (a) is the new proposed system differentiated enough to justify its existence and motivate others to join in? I was just watching my newbie friend try to manipulate directories in D. His first instinct was to go to

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2015-12-30 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thursday, 31 December 2015 at 00:04:03 UTC, bachmeier wrote: It's the process that requires so much overhead that nobody wants to contribute. I really tried to do so myself, but I'm busy, and it is senseless that 95% (or more) of the time I spend on it is wasted due to a system that is

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2015-12-30 Thread Israel via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Thursday, 31 December 2015 at 01:32:56 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: The D leaders know how important examples are. We are often told adding more is low hanging fruit. I completely agree. But that's not ALL we need. He wants examples to get started, yes, but he also wants understanding to go

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2015-12-30 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Wednesday, 30 December 2015 at 14:25:24 UTC, default0 wrote: As an aside, the mere formatting of the list of template-constraints on the dlang page made me nope right out of even bothering to figure out how to read them or what the difference between the first and the second overload of

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2015-12-29 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 at 14:26:48 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote: Okay, I remember you saying something a bit different on IRC (at least to my understanding). Well, I'm still a bit iffy on it, to attach a name I used the first member of the enum which might not pass review muster in dmd

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2015-12-29 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 12/29/2015 10:20 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 at 14:26:48 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote: Okay, I remember you saying something a bit different on IRC (at least to my understanding). Well, I'm still a bit iffy on it, to attach a name I used the first member of the

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2015-12-29 Thread Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 30/12/15 1:32 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 12/29/2015 10:20 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 at 14:26:48 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote: Okay, I remember you saying something a bit different on IRC (at least to my understanding). Well, I'm still a bit iffy on it, to

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2015-12-29 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Wednesday, 30 December 2015 at 00:32:31 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Then why document it? Just on principle, a documentation tool probably shouldn't be limiting the author's ability to document... This might just be a bug in dmd btw. Looking at the ddoc spec page, it says

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2015-12-29 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 12/29/2015 09:09 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: Putting one item per page is far more important than I even realized before getting into this. We already have that: https://dlang.org/library/std/array/join.html If I search for dlang array join that the third hit on google if I'm logged in, and

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2015-12-29 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 at 05:00:48 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote: From what Adam has said, definitely won't be happening with DDOC. There is simply no symbol to attach the comment to. Well, not definitely, it was really easy to do in libdparse (a two line diff) and probably similarly

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2015-12-29 Thread Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 30/12/15 3:24 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 at 05:00:48 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote: From what Adam has said, definitely won't be happening with DDOC. There is simply no symbol to attach the comment to. Well, not definitely, it was really easy to do in libdparse (a

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2015-12-28 Thread Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Monday, 28 December 2015 at 23:01:05 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: The signature proper is nice. The formatting of "&&" in the constraint is inconsistent, but I guess that's a matter with the formatting of the code. Yeah, that is a css bug I just forgot about getting in to everything

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2015-12-28 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
One more note: I salute the initiative of another doc generator and read the motivation behind it. Yet I do think it's worth asking ourselves two questions: (a) is the new proposed system differentiated enough to justify its existence and motivate others to join in? (b) are the existent

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2015-12-28 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 12/28/15 3:15 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: http://dpldocs.info/ Inspired by the php docs, I also have it able to search direct from a URL. Click this: http://dpldocs.info/findSkip The signature proper is nice. The formatting of "&&" in the constraint is inconsistent, but I guess that's a

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2015-12-28 Thread Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 29/12/15 12:05 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: One more note: I salute the initiative of another doc generator and read the motivation behind it. Yet I do think it's worth asking ourselves two questions: (a) is the new proposed system differentiated enough to justify its existence and

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

2015-12-28 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
Rikki Cattermole wrote: > On 29/12/15 12:05 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >> One more note: I salute the initiative of another doc generator and read >> the motivation behind it. Yet I do think it's worth asking ourselves two >> questions: >> >> (a) is the new proposed

  1   2   >