Is it acceptable to post examples/tips and tricks in the wiki, and then link to them in the official Phobos documentation? What I have in mind is adding to the documentation of a Phobos function

See Also: The [wiki](link) for additional documentation.

This would overcome two (valid IMO) complaints about the current system:

1. There is a lot of overhead associated with changing the official docs. With the wiki, you type in your new example and you're done. No futzing around for three hours over a period of several days to make a small change.
2. Dislike of Ddoc. The wiki uses markdown.

The wiki would accommodate helpful information that is not appropriate for the official docs:

1. Specialized examples.
2. Tips and tricks.
3. Guidance on choosing between available functions, like benchmarks.

The wiki has advantages over PHP-style user comments. The main one being that we can do it right now without having to change anything. Another being the fact that user comments shouldn't be part of the official docs, because they are unofficial, and are thus wiki material.

So is this something that we can do?

On 29/12/15 3:23 PM, bachmeier wrote:
> Is it acceptable to post examples/tips and tricks in the wiki, and then
> link to them in the official Phobos documentation? What I have in mind
> is adding to the documentation of a Phobos function
>
> See Also: The [wiki](link) for additional documentation.
>
> This would overcome two (valid IMO) complaints about the current system:
>
> 1. There is a lot of overhead associated with changing the official
> docs. With the wiki, you type in your new example and you're done. No
> futzing around for three hours over a period of several days to make a
> small change.
> 2. Dislike of Ddoc. The wiki uses markdown.
>
> The wiki would accommodate helpful information that is not appropriate
> for the official docs:
>
> 1. Specialized examples.
> 2. Tips and tricks.
> 3. Guidance on choosing between available functions, like benchmarks.
>
> The wiki has advantages over PHP-style user comments. The main one being
> that we can do it right now without having to change anything. Another
> being the fact that user comments shouldn't be part of the official
> docs, because they are unofficial, and are thus wiki material.
>
> So is this something that we can do?

I'm waiting for Andrei to respond but I think we can do one better.

With a little bit of work we could on github ~master push update dlang.org.
So only need somebody to merge PRs or commit changes to ~master and it will auto be up there.

Travis-CI would be good for this. Unfortunately I don't know the OS and how it is setup let alone have auth rights. But it really shouldn't be too much work to do.

On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 at 02:23:27 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> Is it acceptable to post examples/tips and tricks in the wiki, and then link to them in the official Phobos documentation? What I have in mind is adding to the documentation of a Phobos function
>
> See Also: The [wiki](link) for additional documentation.

We had that at some point. Each documentation page had a corresponding wiki page. There are still remnants of this in the ddoc source (the WIKI macro).

It was hardly used, and the contents of wiki pages was almost always out-of-date, so it was removed.

On Thursday, 31 December 2015 at 07:41:05 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 at 02:23:27 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>> Is it acceptable to post examples/tips and tricks in the wiki, and then link to them in the official Phobos documentation? What I have in mind is adding to the documentation of a Phobos function
>>
>> See Also: The [wiki](link) for additional documentation.
>
> We had that at some point. Each documentation page had a corresponding wiki page. There are still remnants of this in the ddoc source (the WIKI macro).
>
> It was hardly used, and the contents of wiki pages was almost always out-of-date, so it was removed.

Perhaps it should be tried again. The language may have been changing more back then. The current situation is that the official documentation doesn't get outdated only because it doesn't exist.