"Vathix" <chris@dprogramming.com> wrote in message news:op.sv71ukr2l2lsvj@esi...
>>> "Docster" might work? On second thought, yuk.
>>
>> or Docmeister
>> or Docinator
>
> Doculator
> Docalicious
> Doctastic
> Cod
> What's up Doc
> DMDoc

dmdoc is the best I've seen so far. I hope Walter doesn't choose something with upper case in it.

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Walter wrote:
> 
>>
>> It already looks like a typical manual page. I've never seen a manual page
>> that used @'s for emphasis (or any book printed since Gutenberg, for that
>> matter).
>>
> But that is not the manual page. It is not the final doc output. And if we think it as such we might as well complain about those unnatural "/**  *  */  /// /++  +  +/",etc. symbols all over it.
<snip>

Which is why I prefer

/**
     this type of ocumentation
*/

over

/**
  *  this type
  */

"Ben Hinkle" <ben.hinkle@gmail.com> wrote in message news:desd8s$je3$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Since to me an empty doc comment isn't obvious it means "same as above"
(to
> me it looks like someone forgot to say something) how about having a word there like Ditto (which means according to dictionary.com "same as stated above or before").

Funny you say that, as I was just thinking that:
    /** ditto */
might do the trick. I guess great minds think alike!

"Bruno Medeiros" <daiphoenixNO@SPAMlycos.com> wrote in message news:desch0$it4$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> (I sense this issue won't go much far than being a matter of personal
> opinion/taste)

You're right, at this point it's pretty obvious this isn't a technical issue.

Walter wrote:

>>I figured that your "Docter" spelling was intentional.  It fits together
>>"doc" and "ter" like a modifier for a verb to make it a noun (almost
>>like "fish-er" or "bat-ter".  It had an added humorous touch of sounding
>>like "Doctor."
> 
> 
> "Docster" might work? On second thought, yuk.
> 
> 

"Docster" is good. :-)

-JJR

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 01:47:18 -0700, Walter wrote:

> I've put up a strawman proposal for embedding documentation in comments at www.digitalmars.com/d/doc.html

Have you considered going the whole route and adding formalized annotations for Splint and ASIS like tools? Look at the Spark system from Praxis High Integrity Systems (www.praxis-his.com/sparkada/)to see what I mean.

Freejack

While Im sure this would be a great new feature, its not high on my list of priorities for D. I would much rather see Walter working on getting his IDE working with D. To this day there still isnt one IDE that has debugging and intellisense (although various ones have each).

In article <derhht$2pm2$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
>
>"John C" <johnch_atms@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:deqq8l$28lg$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> 1) Will we be able to add custom sections?
>
>Currently, unrecognized sections are just passed through to the output unchanged.
>
>> 2) Can you add a "Property" section?
>
>?
>
>> 3) Will it recognise protection attributes?
>
>Sure.
>
>> A custom section could, for example, document what exceptions are thrown
>in
>> a method.
>>
>> Also, I wouldn't want private or package members to be visible in public documentation, or at least there should be a switch to turn such behaviour on and off.
>
>Right.
>
>

Walter wrote:
> I've put up a strawman proposal for embedding documentation in comments at www.digitalmars.com/d/doc.html

Wonderful! This documentation scheme impressed me so that I instantly converted my library's docs into this new proposed format.

The whole approach of providing as clutter-free scheme as possible is definitely worth pursuing for, don't let the Javadoccers with their crazy <p>'s and @-signs change your mind <g>

In any case I have a feeling that documenting D code will be much more pleasant task from now on. Thanks!

--
Niko Korhonen
SW Developer

Niko Korhonen wrote:
> Walter wrote:
> 
>>I've put up a strawman proposal for embedding documentation in comments at
>>www.digitalmars.com/d/doc.html
> 
> 
> Wonderful! This documentation scheme impressed me so that I instantly
> converted my library's docs into this new proposed format.
> 
> The whole approach of providing as clutter-free scheme as possible is
> definitely worth pursuing for, don't let the Javadoccers with their
> crazy <p>'s and @-signs change your mind <g>
> 
> In any case I have a feeling that documenting D code will be much more
> pleasant task from now on. Thanks!
> 

At least much more easily documentable.

> --
> Niko Korhonen
> SW Developer

I'm not sure if this was mentioned earlier, I haven't read about it in the thread yet and I figure that it is worth mentioning.

There is an inline documentation system that (I feel) is worth taking a look at.  It seems to generate good documentation with a minimum of extra symbols and such.

It's called Natural Docs and you can read more at www.naturaldocs.org

Have fun,
Jon
  "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:depaee$fre$1@digitaldaemon.com...
  I've put up a strawman proposal for embedding documentation in comments at
  www.digitalmars.com/d/doc.html