On 12/8/17 7:42 AM, WebFreak001 wrote:
> On Friday, 8 December 2017 at 11:10:16 UTC, Seb wrote:
>> On Friday, 8 December 2017 at 10:13:28 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 12/8/2017 1:48 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>>> * Using emoji
>>>
>>> The problem with these is where are the images stored? So no.
>>
>> Someone thought it's a great idea, to include them into Unicode:
>>
>> https://unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji-list.html
> 
> pls no emoji support, it's not a unified experience across devices, they should just die out lol

+1000, I can't imagine why you'd want emoji in your documentation.

-Steve

On Friday, 8 December 2017 at 10:13:28 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/8/2017 1:48 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>
>
> > I think we should try to support standard markdown [2]
>
> Unfortunately, there's really no such thing.

Well, the main standardization effort is [CommonMark](http://commonmark.org/). They have a spec, test suite, and reference implementations in C and in JS. There's also a list of other implementations:
<https://github.com/commonmark/CommonMark/wiki/List-of-CommonMark-Implementations> (though D isn't there yet), as well as a community forum.

Here's [their 10-minute Markdown tutorial](http://commonmark.org/help/).

If going forward with a rolling your own limited markdown version, go with a subset of CommonMark. That subset could always grow into a full implementation of CommonMark if that's desired later on.

On Friday, 8 December 2017 at 16:43:56 UTC, John Gabriele wrote:
>
> If going forward with a rolling your own limited markdown version, go with a subset of CommonMark.

Sorry, typo, that should be, "consider going with".

On Friday, 8 December 2017 at 15:53:41 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On 12/8/17 7:42 AM, WebFreak001 wrote:
>> On Friday, 8 December 2017 at 11:10:16 UTC, Seb wrote:
>>> On Friday, 8 December 2017 at 10:13:28 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> On 12/8/2017 1:48 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>>>> * Using emoji
>>>>
>>>> The problem with these is where are the images stored? So no.
>>>
>>> Someone thought it's a great idea, to include them into Unicode:
>>>
>>> https://unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji-list.html
>> 
>> pls no emoji support, it's not a unified experience across devices, they should just die out lol
>
> +1000, I can't imagine why you'd want emoji in your documentation.
>
The poop emoji is quite useful to comment other peoples code :-)

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 02:13:28AM -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 12/8/2017 1:48 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
[...]
> > * Using emoji
> 
> The problem with these is where are the images stored? So no.

Unicode contains emoji blocks, which are increasingly commonly used nowadays.

But I agree that we should NOT include emoji in Ddoc markdown.  Why would anyone want to use emoji in code documentation anyway?  Besides, if they *really* want to, they could just insert the actual Unicode character into the documentation text and be done with it.  No need for special syntax just for that.  Hooray for built-in Unicode support in D!


T

-- 
They say that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Well I think the gun helps. If you just stood there and yelled BANG, I don't think you'd kill too many people. -- Eddie Izzard, Dressed to Kill

On 12/8/17 12:09 PM, Patrick Schluter wrote:
> On Friday, 8 December 2017 at 15:53:41 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On 12/8/17 7:42 AM, WebFreak001 wrote:
>>> On Friday, 8 December 2017 at 11:10:16 UTC, Seb wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 8 December 2017 at 10:13:28 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>>> On 12/8/2017 1:48 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>>>>> * Using emoji
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with these is where are the images stored? So no.
>>>>
>>>> Someone thought it's a great idea, to include them into Unicode:
>>>>
>>>> https://unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji-list.html
>>>
>>> pls no emoji support, it's not a unified experience across devices, they should just die out lol
>>
>> +1000, I can't imagine why you'd want emoji in your documentation.
>>
> The poop emoji is quite useful to comment other peoples code :-)

It would be your own code that would have it, as it's the documentation for your functions :)

-Steve

On Friday, 8 December 2017 at 18:11:56 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On 12/8/17 12:09 PM, Patrick Schluter wrote:
>> On Friday, 8 December 2017 at 15:53:41 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> On 12/8/17 7:42 AM, WebFreak001 wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 8 December 2017 at 11:10:16 UTC, Seb wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> pls no emoji support, it's not a unified experience across devices, they should just die out lol
>>>
>>> +1000, I can't imagine why you'd want emoji in your documentation.
>>>
>> The poop emoji is quite useful to comment other peoples code :-)
>
> It would be your own code that would have it, as it's the documentation for your functions :)
>
That's where it's the most appropriate! (says the one who just corrected two regressions in his project that go back to 2013).

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 05:38:21PM -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 12/8/2017 7:53 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> > +1000, I can't imagine why you'd want emoji in your documentation.
> 
> No D-Man emoji, sigh.

We should lobby the Unicode Consortium to add it!


T

-- 
Never step over a puddle, always step around it. Chances are that whatever made it is still dripping.

On 12/8/2017 3:10 AM, Seb wrote:
> On Friday, 8 December 2017 at 10:13:28 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 12/8/2017 1:48 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>> * Using emoji
>>
>> The problem with these is where are the images stored? So no.
> 
> Someone thought it's a great idea, to include them into Unicode:
> 
> https://unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji-list.html

Thanks for the link, I didn't know that browsers supported them yet.

If you want to use them, just use the existing syntax to do it:

    \u25B6   right arrow

D already has support for lots of named entities:

    https://dlang.org/spec/entity.html

There doesn't seem much point in adding a third method of naming entities. Besides, you can always create a macro to name them anything you please:

    RIGHTARROW=\u25B6

and use it:

    $(RIGHTARROW)

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 05:34:31PM -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 12/8/2017 3:10 AM, Seb wrote:
[...]
> > https://unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji-list.html
> 
> Thanks for the link, I didn't know that browsers supported them yet.
> 
> If you want to use them, just use the existing syntax to do it:
> 
>     \u25B6   right arrow
> 
> D already has support for lots of named entities:
> 
>     https://dlang.org/spec/entity.html
> 
> There doesn't seem much point in adding a third method of naming entities.  Besides, you can always create a macro to name them anything you please:
> 
>     RIGHTARROW=\u25B6
> 
> and use it:
> 
>     $(RIGHTARROW)

Yeah, I think emojis are not worth adding special syntax for.  They are just too much effort for something marginal to documenting code, that we shouldn't be wasting time trying to support them or debate about them.


T

-- 
Food and laptops don't mix.