Walter Bright wrote:
> I've been taking some heat lately about the D web site not making available a PDF version of the D manual that can be downloaded, printed, and read offline.
> 
> I know some people have made PDFs of the manual before. The trouble is, they rapidly go out of date.
> 
> So I'm interested in if anyone can recommend a tool that can take text and convert it to PDFs. I'm not interested in a tool with a gui interface, I want one that can be driven from a script, so this can be done automatically with each new release.
> 
> (The html version of the manual is currently created automatically using a script from Ddoc text files. Such has really cut the workload of maintaining a common look/feel of the site.)

I've had relatively good results by using css2xslfo and Apache FOP. css2xslfo has some support for XHTML (and, obviously CSS), so that may be the easiest way to go, considering the current output is HTML already.

http://www.re.be/css2xslfo/
http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/


xs0

Anders F Björklund escribió:
> Steve Horne wrote:
> 
>>> I would prefer adding a proper support for D syntax and semantics to
>>> doxygen. There's not much point in reinventing the wheel again.
>>
>> Yes, but then adding D support to Doxygen is re-inventing the wheel in
>> the sense that Doxygen then has to parse and understand D.
> 
> Doxygen currently understands a simple subset of "D 1.0",
> even if doesn't understand much of templates and "D 2.0".
> (Currently using it instead of Ddoc, which just outputs
> blank for all code that doesn't have any comments added ?)
> 

You know, that I'd like. Maybe a switch (-Ddocall) to tell ddoc to output everything?

> We've been using this to share docs between D/C#/Java,
> that also have one "native" documentation format each.
> I'm sure the D support in Doxygen could be improved...
> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?DoxygenIssues
> 
> But for the D "manual" (specification), there are probably
> better formats to use than those done for commenting code ?
> 
> --anders


-- 
Carlos Santander Bernal

Anders F Björklund wrote:
> Steve Horne wrote:
> 
>>> I would prefer adding a proper support for D syntax and semantics to doxygen. There's not much point in reinventing the wheel again.
>>
>> Yes, but then adding D support to Doxygen is re-inventing the wheel in the sense that Doxygen then has to parse and understand D.

Yes, but AFAIK Doxygen is much bigger project than DDoc. So there's a lot more to reinvent in DDoc. I can see the benefits that DDoc has, but from the outside it looks like it has been made for one purpose - to produce very simple html code. There are no bells and whistles to produce customized large scale documentation. And it's not that straightforward to create flexible macros for other output formats. But that's a good basis for creating something better, of course. :)

> Doxygen currently understands a simple subset of "D 1.0", even if doesn't understand much of templates and "D 2.0". (Currently using it instead of Ddoc, which just outputs blank for all code that doesn't have any comments added ?)
> 
> But for the D "manual" (specification), there are probably better formats to use than those done for commenting code ?

Of course. But for the standard libraries they are quite handy.