Now that the issue of documentation came up, I wonder if there's interest in a high-quality PDF rendering of the language spec (e.g. similar to the interior design of TDPL itself). Is it worth the effort?

Thanks,

Andrei

On 05-01-2013 04:53, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Now that the issue of documentation came up, I wonder if there's
> interest in a high-quality PDF rendering of the language spec (e.g.
> similar to the interior design of TDPL itself). Is it worth the effort?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrei

I would love to have that.

-- 
Alex Rønne Petersen
alex@alexrp.com / alex@lycus.org
http://lycus.org

Al 05/01/13 04:53, En/na Andrei Alexandrescu ha escrit:
> Now that the issue of documentation came up, I wonder if there's interest in a high-quality PDF rendering of the language spec (e.g. similar to the interior design of TDPL itself). Is it worth the effort?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andrei
> 

+1000

-- 
Jordi Sayol

On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 10:53:13PM -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Now that the issue of documentation came up, I wonder if there's interest in a high-quality PDF rendering of the language spec (e.g. similar to the interior design of TDPL itself). Is it worth the effort?
[...]

Is it ready for finalization, or are major changes (like UDA) still going to take place? If major changes are still going to take place (and, in the long run, I hope D will keep improving), then we should have a version system for the spec, so that we don't end up in the situation where somebody with a copy of the older spec thinks feature X is one way, and the latest implementation according to a newer spec implements it a different way, but there's no indication of which spec is supposed to be the correct one.


T

-- 
Lawyer: (n.) An innocence-vending machine, the effectiveness of which depends on how much money is inserted.

On 1/5/13 1:04 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 10:53:13PM -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Now that the issue of documentation came up, I wonder if there's
>> interest in a high-quality PDF rendering of the language spec (e.g.
>> similar to the interior design of TDPL itself). Is it worth the
>> effort?
> [...]
>
> Is it ready for finalization, or are major changes (like UDA) still
> going to take place? If major changes are still going to take place
> (and, in the long run, I hope D will keep improving), then we should
> have a version system for the spec, so that we don't end up in the
> situation where somebody with a copy of the older spec thinks feature X
> is one way, and the latest implementation according to a newer spec
> implements it a different way, but there's no indication of which spec
> is supposed to be the correct one.

The spec pdf would be just a rendering of the online dox, just like .mobi is.

Andrei

On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 01:20:36AM -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 1/5/13 1:04 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 10:53:13PM -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >>Now that the issue of documentation came up, I wonder if there's interest in a high-quality PDF rendering of the language spec (e.g. similar to the interior design of TDPL itself). Is it worth the effort?
> >[...]
> >
> >Is it ready for finalization, or are major changes (like UDA) still going to take place? If major changes are still going to take place (and, in the long run, I hope D will keep improving), then we should have a version system for the spec, so that we don't end up in the situation where somebody with a copy of the older spec thinks feature X is one way, and the latest implementation according to a newer spec implements it a different way, but there's no indication of which spec is supposed to be the correct one.
> 
> The spec pdf would be just a rendering of the online dox, just like .mobi is.
[...]

OK. Well, to answer your original question, yes I'm interested in a PDF rendering. I do think we should attach a version to it, though. Or at least a last-revised date.


T

-- 
Gone Chopin. Bach in a minuet.

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu < SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:

>
> The spec pdf would be just a rendering of the online dox, just like .mobi is.


I'd be interested.

It can also be done in markdown, which we all know now, with github being a central D repository.
>From markdown, it can easily be translated into pdf, html, mobi or epub
(heck, even docx)


Philippe

On 05-01-2013 09:59, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
> <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org <mailto:SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org>>
> wrote:
>
>
>     The spec pdf would be just a rendering of the online dox, just like
>     .mobi is.
>
>
> I'd be interested.
>
> It can also be done in markdown, which we all know now, with github
> being a central D repository.
>  From markdown, it can easily be translated into pdf, html, mobi or epub
> (heck, even docx)
>
>
> Philippe

We just have way too much documentation already written in Ddoc.

But I agree - Markdown would be significantly nicer to write the spec in... Ddoc has a too HTML-y feel to it for general writing.

-- 
Alex Rønne Petersen
alex@alexrp.com / alex@lycus.org
http://lycus.org

On Saturday, 5 January 2013 at 08:59:32 UTC, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
>>From markdown, it can easily be translated into pdf, html, mobi or epub
> (heck, even docx)
>
> Philippe

I was wondering: do you use Pandoc to do that (e.g. for your D-template tutorial)?

Nicolas

On 1/5/13 4:17 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> But I agree - Markdown would be significantly nicer to write the spec
> in... Ddoc has a too HTML-y feel to it for general writing.

But Markdown seems to have no macros.

Andrei