No bugs fixed, just the new Ddoc documentation generator. It's not perfect, and the presentation highlighting and layout is more utilitarian than sublime, but it really does cut down on the work of generating reasonable looking documentation by about half.

I also found several errors in the pages converted to Ddoc format - inconsistencies between the code and the previous documentation. Hopefully, Ddoc will relegate such errors to the past.

It's pretty close to what we discussed in the newsgroup recently. Thanks to all for the very helpful suggestions.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

Ddoc spec:

www.digitalmars.com/d/ddoc.html

Sample pages generated by Ddoc:

www.digitalmars.com/d/phobos/std_math.html www.digitalmars.com/d/phobos/std_path.html www.digitalmars.com/d/phobos/std_outbuffer.html www.digitalmars.com/d/phobos/std_stream.html

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:07:00 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

> No bugs fixed, just the new Ddoc documentation generator. It's not perfect, and the presentation highlighting and layout is more utilitarian than sublime, but it really does cut down on the work of generating reasonable looking documentation by about half.

Thanks Walter. I'm sure this is a step in the right direction, and although it may be a bit wobbly just now, it can only improve.
-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
20/09/2005 11:11:55 AM

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:07:00 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

> No bugs fixed, just the new Ddoc documentation generator.

I'm disappointed that you choose to write the documentation generator in C++ and not D.

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
20/09/2005 11:35:29 AM

"Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message news:vvo2v3iu7v23.twof8i1rkv2y$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:07:00 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
>
> > No bugs fixed, just the new Ddoc documentation generator. It's not
perfect,
> > and the presentation highlighting and layout is more utilitarian than sublime, but it really does cut down on the work of generating
reasonable
> > looking documentation by about half.
>
> Thanks Walter. I'm sure this is a step in the right direction, and
although
> it may be a bit wobbly just now, it can only improve.

The neat thing about it is that it can be used now. When Ddoc improves, all you'll need to do is rerun it to regenerate the documentation, and voila! It provides a nice independence from the vagaries of an ever-changing HTML specification.

For example, right now it doesn't do color syntax highlighting of example code. If this gets implemented in Ddoc, then everyone will get color syntax highlighting automatically.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:36:25 +1000, Derek Parnell wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:07:00 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>> No bugs fixed, just the new Ddoc documentation generator.
> 
> I'm disappointed that you choose to write the documentation generator in C++ and not D.

However I can understand why; Ddoc being tightly integrated into the DMD product. And this will also encourage alterative generators to be written.

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
20/09/2005 11:41:54 AM

"Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message news:169ddipz4iv9l$.1hlvi166y9g2q$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:36:25 +1000, Derek Parnell wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:07:00 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
> >
> >> No bugs fixed, just the new Ddoc documentation generator.
> >
> > I'm disappointed that you choose to write the documentation generator in C++ and not D.

So am I. It would have been significantly less work to write it in D.

> However I can understand why; Ddoc being tightly integrated into the DMD product.

Yes, it relies on the rest of the front end.

> And this will also encourage alterative generators to be written.

That's why it's all in doc.h and doc.c. Upgrading it should be fairly easy.

In article <dgnng9$2tb8$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
>
>No bugs fixed, just the new Ddoc documentation generator. It's not perfect, and the presentation highlighting and layout is more utilitarian than sublime, but it really does cut down on the work of generating reasonable looking documentation by about half.
>
>I also found several errors in the pages converted to Ddoc format - inconsistencies between the code and the previous documentation. Hopefully, Ddoc will relegate such errors to the past.
>
>It's pretty close to what we discussed in the newsgroup recently. Thanks to all for the very helpful suggestions.
>
>http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
>
>Ddoc spec:
>
>www.digitalmars.com/d/ddoc.html
>
>Sample pages generated by Ddoc:
>
>www.digitalmars.com/d/phobos/std_math.html www.digitalmars.com/d/phobos/std_path.html www.digitalmars.com/d/phobos/std_outbuffer.html www.digitalmars.com/d/phobos/std_stream.html
>

Kool! I'll have to try it out. :)

David L.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dare to reach for the Stars...Dare to Dream, Build, and Achieve!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------

MKoD: http://spottedtiger.tripod.com/D_Language/D_Main_XP.html

Walter Bright wrote:
> No bugs fixed, just the new Ddoc documentation generator. It's not perfect,
> and the presentation highlighting and layout is more utilitarian than
> sublime, but it really does cut down on the work of generating reasonable
> looking documentation by about half.
> 
> I also found several errors in the pages converted to Ddoc format -
> inconsistencies between the code and the previous documentation. Hopefully,
> Ddoc will relegate such errors to the past.
> 
> It's pretty close to what we discussed in the newsgroup recently. Thanks to
> all for the very helpful suggestions.
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
> 
> Ddoc spec:
> 
> www.digitalmars.com/d/ddoc.html
> 
> Sample pages generated by Ddoc:
> 
> www.digitalmars.com/d/phobos/std_math.html
> www.digitalmars.com/d/phobos/std_path.html
> www.digitalmars.com/d/phobos/std_outbuffer.html
> www.digitalmars.com/d/phobos/std_stream.html
> 
> 

Now there is no excuse for not having decent documentation : )

Thanks.

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:57:22 -0400, clayasaurus wrote:

> Walter Bright wrote:
>> No bugs fixed, just the new Ddoc documentation generator.

> Now there is no excuse for not having decent documentation : )

We must not confuse form with content ;-)

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
20/09/2005 2:18:58 PM

clayasaurus wrote:
<snip>
> Now there is no excuse for not having decent documentation : )

Not sure about that - part of being decent is being valid according to the format it purports to be in.

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.