On Wednesday, 27 July 2016 at 12:14:39 UTC, lkfsdg wrote:
> IDE or text editor with special features for D, everytbody uses one

me not.

On Wednesday, 27 July 2016 at 12:19:34 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 July 2016 at 12:14:39 UTC, lkfsdg wrote:
>> IDE or text editor with special features for D, everytbody uses one
>
> me not.

perfect, so your the exception that confirm the rule.

27.07.2016 15:21, lkfsdg пишет:
> On Wednesday, 27 July 2016 at 12:19:34 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 27 July 2016 at 12:14:39 UTC, lkfsdg wrote:
>>> IDE or text editor with special features for D, everytbody uses one
>>
>> me not.
>
> perfect, so your the exception that confirm the rule.

no, he isn't, I'm not use an IDE or a specialized editor too. And I know other people who doesn't use an IDE.

On Wednesday, 27 July 2016 at 12:21:27 UTC, lkfsdg wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 July 2016 at 12:19:34 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 27 July 2016 at 12:14:39 UTC, lkfsdg wrote:
>>> IDE or text editor with special features for D, everytbody uses one
>>
>> me not.
>
> perfect, so your the exception that confirm the rule.

Me neither.

On Wednesday, 27 July 2016 at 12:32:28 UTC, Lodovico Giaretta wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 July 2016 at 12:21:27 UTC, lkfsdg wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 27 July 2016 at 12:19:34 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 27 July 2016 at 12:14:39 UTC, lkfsdg wrote:
>>>> IDE or text editor with special features for D, everytbody uses one
>>>
>>> me not.
>>
>> perfect, so your the exception that confirm the rule.
>
> Me neither.

Mmmh i see, but you will have to use one when the time to remove the prefixes such as "fast", "precise" will come.

On Wednesday, 27 July 2016 at 13:10:11 UTC, lkfsdg wrote:

>
> Mmmh i see, but you will have to use one when the time to remove the prefixes such as "fast", "precise" will come.

For small test programs it's hardly worth to use an IDE, even if you use one for big projects.

But this is a pointless discussion. The point was to improve the docs in the sense that you have immediate _online_ access to a function's source code. This has already been implemented, and of story. There's no need to argue whether "to IDE or not to IDE".

On Wednesday, 27 July 2016 at 13:24:33 UTC, Chris wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 July 2016 at 13:10:11 UTC, lkfsdg wrote:
>
>>
>> Mmmh i see, but you will have to use one when the time to remove the prefixes such as "fast", "precise" will come.
>
> For small test programs it's hardly worth to use an IDE, even if you use one for big projects.
>
> But this is a pointless discussion. The point was to improve the docs in the sense that you have immediate _online_ access to a function's source code. This has already been implemented, and of story. There's no need to argue whether "to IDE or not to IDE".

s/and/end

On Wednesday, 27 July 2016 at 09:43:45 UTC, Chris wrote:
> Wouldn't it be nice to have a direct link from the documentation of the function to the source code? Is that feasible at all?

http://dpldocs.info/std.algorithm.searching.any

go to the bottom for annotated source

http://dpldocs.info/experimental-docs/source/std.algorithm.searching.d.html#L157


My thing is still slightly buggy but I have somewhat bigger plans for it, making my own source viewer instead of using Github's slow, generic, slow thing that is really slow. (Seriously, it is unusably slow on my laptop on anything more than like 100 lines, locking up the web browser and killing battery.)

I also copy the source for the specific version the docs apply to so they can stay in sync without bleeding edge HEAD on one side and some tagged release on the other.

On Wednesday, 27 July 2016 at 13:24:33 UTC, Chris wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 July 2016 at 13:10:11 UTC, lkfsdg wrote:
>
>>
>> Mmmh i see, but you will have to use one when the time to remove the prefixes such as "fast", "precise" will come.
>
> For small test programs it's hardly worth to use an IDE, even if you use one for big projects.
>
> But this is a pointless discussion. The point was to improve the docs in the sense that you have immediate _online_ access to a function's source code. This has already been implemented, and of story. There's no need to argue whether "to IDE or not to IDE".

Yes I've forgotten to put the [OT] prefix to detach it from the main thread.

On 27.07.2016 14:21, lkfsdg wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 July 2016 at 12:19:34 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 27 July 2016 at 12:14:39 UTC, lkfsdg wrote:
>>> IDE or text editor with special features for D, everytbody uses one
>>
>> me not.
>
> perfect, so your the exception that confirm the rule.

Exceptions don't confirm the rule. They disprove the rule.