On 2/1/2018 6:09 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On 1/31/18 9:58 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 1/31/2018 5:37 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> Where it breaks down is when you have many nested tags, and you end with )))))
>>
>> Long ago, I adjusted my text editor so that when the cursor is placed on ), the matching ( is found. Ditto for { }, [ ], < >, and #if/#elif/#else/#endif (!). It's been incredibly convenient.
> 
> This has literally been in vim since I started using it, what, 15 years ago? It doesn't matter.

The #if too?


> When I'm reviewing a PR, I don't see the matching as easily.

True, but that applies to anything with a block structure.

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 20:15:11 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> This is the kind of thing you should be promoting to Andrei to convince him that dpldocs is better. ;-)

I'm updating my fork now and check out this merge conflict:

<<<<<<< HEAD
     *  source = The [isInputRange|input range] to encode.
=======
     *  source = The $(REF_ALTTEXT input range, isInputRange, std,range,primitives)
     *           to _encode.
>>>>>>> b905180b1fffa78f922677ee90ed8ae9b803fc4f



My syntax is so much prettier. (note that the stupid leading _ is something I strip out too. Ddoc's most moronic "feature". Can we PLEASE kill that?!?!?!!)

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 15:04:42 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> What bugs me with that sample is that the headers are repeated a lot... but it isn't bad.

Yeah, the moment I scrolled the table header out of sight I can't make sense of the cells anymore.

> But re* sounds like maybe restructuredText which I borrowed some ideas from too.

Ah, found, it's called recfile https://www.gnu.org/software/recutils/

On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 04:37:44 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 20:15:11 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> This is the kind of thing you should be promoting to Andrei to convince him that dpldocs is better. ;-)
>
> I'm updating my fork now and check out this merge conflict:
>
> <<<<<<< HEAD
>      *  source = The [isInputRange|input range] to encode.
> =======
>      *  source = The $(REF_ALTTEXT input range, isInputRange, std,range,primitives)
>      *           to _encode.
>>>>>>>> b905180b1fffa78f922677ee90ed8ae9b803fc4f
>
>
>
> My syntax is so much prettier. (note that the stupid leading _ is something I strip out too. Ddoc's most moronic "feature". Can we PLEASE kill that?!?!?!!)

I think that would only work if we drop the ddoc of phobos entirely or add a similar feature to ddoc.
Don't get me wrong, I like adrdox a lot more than ddoc and I don't like the REF Ddoc feature either.

On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 04:37:44 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 20:15:11 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> This is the kind of thing you should be promoting to Andrei to convince him that dpldocs is better. ;-)
>
> I'm updating my fork now and check out this merge conflict:
>
> <<<<<<< HEAD
>      *  source = The [isInputRange|input range] to encode.
> =======
>      *  source = The $(REF_ALTTEXT input range, isInputRange, std,range,primitives)
>      *           to _encode.
>>>>>>>> b905180b1fffa78f922677ee90ed8ae9b803fc4f
>
>
>
> My syntax is so much prettier. (note that the stupid leading _ is something I strip out too. Ddoc's most moronic "feature". Can we PLEASE kill that?!?!?!!)

Have you thought of simply postprocessing REF_ALTTEXT for your documentation engine for now?
That won't lead to merge conflicts ;-)
e.g.

sed -i "s/[$](REF_ALTTEXT \([^,]*\),\([^,]*\),[^)]*)/[\2|\1]" **/*.d

On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 04:37:44AM +0000, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...]
> I'm updating my fork now and check out this merge conflict:
> 
> <<<<<<< HEAD
>      *  source = The [isInputRange|input range] to encode.
> =======
>      *  source = The $(REF_ALTTEXT input range, isInputRange,
> std,range,primitives)
>      *           to _encode.
> > > > > > > > b905180b1fffa78f922677ee90ed8ae9b803fc4f
> 
> My syntax is so much prettier. (note that the stupid leading _ is something I strip out too. Ddoc's most moronic "feature". Can we PLEASE kill that?!?!?!!)

+1000. That misfeature has been continually plaguing us ever since it was introduced, leading to a constant endless churn of PRs sprinkling _'s everywhere just to suppress ddoc's "helpful" highlighting of stuff it shouldn't have highlighted in the first place. Extremely annoying.


T

-- 
A linguistics professor was lecturing to his class one day. "In
English," he said, "A double negative forms a positive. In some
languages, though, such as Russian, a double negative is still a
negative. However, there is no language wherein a double positive can
form a negative."
A voice from the back of the room piped up, "Yeah, yeah."

On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 11:44:44 UTC, Seb wrote:
> Have you thought of simply postprocessing REF_ALTTEXT for your documentation engine for now?

It actually supports the macro, so I could just keep the upstream source here, just the difference between them is kinda striking.

The history here is there were a lot of broken links in the phobos source because they used LINK2 when I forked. I changed them to my [reference] syntax and made the point that if it is broken for me, it is broken for ddox too, so a macro should be introduced to fix it.

After that, the $(REF) and $(REF_ALTTEXT) macros were introduced in Phobos.... but I had already changed all the LINK2 in my tree to my syntax, so when Phobos changed their LINK2s to REF later (it took between months and years for Phobos to catch up to what I was able to accomplish in days and weeks!), I added support for the Phobos macro too, but the ones I had already changed the syntax on caused these merge conflicts.



I pasted it here just because of the kinda striking difference. And adrdox actually even supports pseudo-symbol references of this type so you could just write [input-range] and it'd look it up from a user-supplied glossary (located in the source of package.d btw, it is scoped just like a real symbol) to know the term and the appropriate link!

But even the long form you see above is just so much nicer than the macro one. You don't have to tell the compiler something the compiler already knows - which import isInputRange comes from.

On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 11:41:27 UTC, Seb wrote:
> I think that would only work if we drop the ddoc of phobos entirely or add a similar feature to ddoc.

I could live with either :P

But the underscore thing is just plain bad. Literally NOBODY has ever liked it - every time this comes up, people are not happy with it saying "why is my word randomly italicized" and "why do i have to put _ randomly in phobos".

Just even such an OBVIOUS GLARING FLAW with a reasonably straightforward replacement path (define the highlight macro to be a no-op, minimally, or just simply remove the "feature" entirely with a transition switch to warn you every time it sees what is now an extra _ on a word - that's what I did with adrdox and fixed my Phobos fork up in about 30 mins) hits a brick wall.

> Don't get me wrong, I like adrdox a lot more than ddoc and I don't like the REF Ddoc feature either.

BTW I am going to have another burst of time to do improvements to it soon, and I think I still have a list of nits from you so you might see some nice improvements in the coming month.

February is a somewhat slow month for me with day job work which means I expect to be able to afford a good block of time to work on this again.

On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 06:18:55AM -0800, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 04:37:44AM +0000, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...]
> > (note that the stupid leading _ is something I strip out too. Ddoc's most moronic "feature". Can we PLEASE kill that?!?!?!!)
> 
> +1000. That misfeature has been continually plaguing us ever since it was introduced, leading to a constant endless churn of PRs sprinkling _'s everywhere just to suppress ddoc's "helpful" highlighting of stuff it shouldn't have highlighted in the first place. Extremely annoying.
[...]

I got sick of just whining about, and decided to do something about it instead:

	https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/7834

Destroy!


T

-- 
Right now I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.

On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 17:20:35 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> I got sick of just whining about, and decided to do something about it instead:

Whelp, g'luck. I've tried to null out the macro before, maybe this approach will work better.

The stupid thing should just be killed entirely though. It was never of any legitimate value.