January 05, 2013 dlangspec.pdf? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Now that the issue of documentation came up, I wonder if there's interest in a high-quality PDF rendering of the language spec (e.g. similar to the interior design of TDPL itself). Is it worth the effort? Thanks, Andrei |
January 05, 2013 Re: dlangspec.pdf? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Andrei Alexandrescu | On 05-01-2013 04:53, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > Now that the issue of documentation came up, I wonder if there's > interest in a high-quality PDF rendering of the language spec (e.g. > similar to the interior design of TDPL itself). Is it worth the effort? > > Thanks, > > Andrei I would love to have that. -- Alex Rønne Petersen alex@alexrp.com / alex@lycus.org http://lycus.org |
January 05, 2013 Re: dlangspec.pdf? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Andrei Alexandrescu | Al 05/01/13 04:53, En/na Andrei Alexandrescu ha escrit: > Now that the issue of documentation came up, I wonder if there's interest in a high-quality PDF rendering of the language spec (e.g. similar to the interior design of TDPL itself). Is it worth the effort? > > Thanks, > > Andrei > +1000 -- Jordi Sayol |
January 05, 2013 Re: dlangspec.pdf? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Andrei Alexandrescu | On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 10:53:13PM -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > Now that the issue of documentation came up, I wonder if there's interest in a high-quality PDF rendering of the language spec (e.g. similar to the interior design of TDPL itself). Is it worth the effort? [...] Is it ready for finalization, or are major changes (like UDA) still going to take place? If major changes are still going to take place (and, in the long run, I hope D will keep improving), then we should have a version system for the spec, so that we don't end up in the situation where somebody with a copy of the older spec thinks feature X is one way, and the latest implementation according to a newer spec implements it a different way, but there's no indication of which spec is supposed to be the correct one. T -- Lawyer: (n.) An innocence-vending machine, the effectiveness of which depends on how much money is inserted. |
January 05, 2013 Re: dlangspec.pdf? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to H. S. Teoh | On 1/5/13 1:04 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 10:53:13PM -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Now that the issue of documentation came up, I wonder if there's
>> interest in a high-quality PDF rendering of the language spec (e.g.
>> similar to the interior design of TDPL itself). Is it worth the
>> effort?
> [...]
>
> Is it ready for finalization, or are major changes (like UDA) still
> going to take place? If major changes are still going to take place
> (and, in the long run, I hope D will keep improving), then we should
> have a version system for the spec, so that we don't end up in the
> situation where somebody with a copy of the older spec thinks feature X
> is one way, and the latest implementation according to a newer spec
> implements it a different way, but there's no indication of which spec
> is supposed to be the correct one.
The spec pdf would be just a rendering of the online dox, just like .mobi is.
Andrei
|
January 05, 2013 Re: dlangspec.pdf? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Andrei Alexandrescu | On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 01:20:36AM -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > On 1/5/13 1:04 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote: > >On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 10:53:13PM -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > >>Now that the issue of documentation came up, I wonder if there's interest in a high-quality PDF rendering of the language spec (e.g. similar to the interior design of TDPL itself). Is it worth the effort? > >[...] > > > >Is it ready for finalization, or are major changes (like UDA) still going to take place? If major changes are still going to take place (and, in the long run, I hope D will keep improving), then we should have a version system for the spec, so that we don't end up in the situation where somebody with a copy of the older spec thinks feature X is one way, and the latest implementation according to a newer spec implements it a different way, but there's no indication of which spec is supposed to be the correct one. > > The spec pdf would be just a rendering of the online dox, just like .mobi is. [...] OK. Well, to answer your original question, yes I'm interested in a PDF rendering. I do think we should attach a version to it, though. Or at least a last-revised date. T -- Gone Chopin. Bach in a minuet. |
January 05, 2013 Re: dlangspec.pdf? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Andrei Alexandrescu Attachments:
| On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu < SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote: > > The spec pdf would be just a rendering of the online dox, just like .mobi is. I'd be interested. It can also be done in markdown, which we all know now, with github being a central D repository. >From markdown, it can easily be translated into pdf, html, mobi or epub (heck, even docx) Philippe |
January 05, 2013 Re: dlangspec.pdf? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Philippe Sigaud | On 05-01-2013 09:59, Philippe Sigaud wrote: > On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu > <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org <mailto:SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org>> > wrote: > > > The spec pdf would be just a rendering of the online dox, just like > .mobi is. > > > I'd be interested. > > It can also be done in markdown, which we all know now, with github > being a central D repository. > From markdown, it can easily be translated into pdf, html, mobi or epub > (heck, even docx) > > > Philippe We just have way too much documentation already written in Ddoc. But I agree - Markdown would be significantly nicer to write the spec in... Ddoc has a too HTML-y feel to it for general writing. -- Alex Rønne Petersen alex@alexrp.com / alex@lycus.org http://lycus.org |
January 05, 2013 Re: dlangspec.pdf? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Philippe Sigaud | On Saturday, 5 January 2013 at 08:59:32 UTC, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
>>From markdown, it can easily be translated into pdf, html, mobi or epub
> (heck, even docx)
>
> Philippe
I was wondering: do you use Pandoc to do that (e.g. for your D-template tutorial)?
Nicolas
|
January 05, 2013 Re: dlangspec.pdf? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Alex Rønne Petersen | On 1/5/13 4:17 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> But I agree - Markdown would be significantly nicer to write the spec
> in... Ddoc has a too HTML-y feel to it for general writing.
But Markdown seems to have no macros.
Andrei
|
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation