digitalmars.D - Better ddoc defaults?
- Yuxuan Shui (10/10) Mar 09 2017 I'm using ddoc for the first time. I was naively expecting
- Adam D. Ruppe (6/7) Mar 09 2017 ddoc DID just recently get an overhaul... do your pages look like
- Yuxuan Shui (3/11) Mar 09 2017 Yes, this one is better, but I'm still not satisfied...
- Adam D. Ruppe (6/7) Mar 09 2017 The text is unreadably small in places, not sure why. I just ran
- H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d (10/21) Mar 09 2017 If you're interested, I wrote a simple set of drop-in replacement macros
- Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] (5/16) Mar 09 2017 My favorite one is: https://github.com/MartinNowak/scod.
- Yuxuan Shui (9/28) Mar 11 2017 I tried ddox, and it worked pretty well. Only problem is that,
- Yuxuan Shui (2/20) Mar 11 2017 I opened a PR for this: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6621
I'm using ddoc for the first time. I was naively expecting something resembles dlang.org, and the results is a bit disappointing. So I looked at dlang.org and realized lots and lots of ddoc templates are required to achieve that. As the developer of a tiny package that nobody cares, I want to have a nice looking documents page, but I don't want put too much (or any!) time into it. And I don't care whether my documents have any "personality". I guess a lot people would agree. So why don't we make the defaults more beautiful? Or make the dlang.org templates easier to adopt for average users?
Mar 09 2017
On Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 21:08:17 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:So why don't we make the defaults more beautiful?ddoc DID just recently get an overhaul... do your pages look like http://arsdnet.net/dcode/simpledisplay.html or like this http://arsdnet.net/ddoc/simpledisplay.html ?
Mar 09 2017
On Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 21:17:11 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:On Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 21:08:17 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:Yes, this one is better, but I'm still not satisfied... Also this page looks kind of broken?So why don't we make the defaults more beautiful?ddoc DID just recently get an overhaul... do your pages look like http://arsdnet.net/dcode/simpledisplay.htmlor like this http://arsdnet.net/ddoc/simpledisplay.html ?
Mar 09 2017
Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> On Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 21:43:00 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:Also this page looks kind of broken?The text is unreadably small in places, not sure why. I just ran my file through dmd -D with the newest version, so I assume it is the new default macros. I don't use ddoc for myself though, I just keep those two files around for comparison.
Mar 09 2017
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 09:08:17PM +0000, Yuxuan Shui via Digitalmars-d wrote:I'm using ddoc for the first time. I was naively expecting something resembles dlang.org, and the results is a bit disappointing. So I looked at dlang.org and realized lots and lots of ddoc templates are required to achieve that. As the developer of a tiny package that nobody cares, I want to have a nice looking documents page, but I don't want put too much (or any!) time into it. And I don't care whether my documents have any "personality". I guess a lot people would agree.If you're interested, I wrote a simple set of drop-in replacement macros that gives you a decent formatting without getting to the fanciness (and complexity) of dlang.org docs: https://github.com/quickfur/Viola-ddoc-macrosSo why don't we make the defaults more beautiful? Or make the dlang.org templates easier to adopt for average users?If you feel strongly enough about it, you *could* turn my macros file into a PR and see how it goes? ;-) T -- Some days you win; most days you lose.
Mar 09 2017
On Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 21:08:17 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:I'm using ddoc for the first time. I was naively expecting something resembles dlang.org, and the results is a bit disappointing. So I looked at dlang.org and realized lots and lots of ddoc templates are required to achieve that. As the developer of a tiny package that nobody cares, I want to have a nice looking documents page, but I don't want put too much (or any!) time into it. And I don't care whether my documents have any "personality". I guess a lot people would agree. So why don't we make the defaults more beautiful? Or make the dlang.org templates easier to adopt for average users?My favorite one is: https://github.com/MartinNowak/scod. BTW, the default ddox (the one that comes with dub) is getting an upgrade soon: https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/ddox/pull/149 https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/ddox/pull/150.
Mar 09 2017
On Friday, 10 March 2017 at 07:58:36 UTC, Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] wrote:On Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 21:08:17 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:I tried ddox, and it worked pretty well. Only problem is that, ddox uses the json output of dmd, which is different from dmd -D result. dmd -D will include the then-branch of static-ifs and version blocks that's been compiled in, but the json output doesn't. Is this by design? Or can we make the json output consistent with the ddoc output?I'm using ddoc for the first time. I was naively expecting something resembles dlang.org, and the results is a bit disappointing. So I looked at dlang.org and realized lots and lots of ddoc templates are required to achieve that. As the developer of a tiny package that nobody cares, I want to have a nice looking documents page, but I don't want put too much (or any!) time into it. And I don't care whether my documents have any "personality". I guess a lot people would agree. So why don't we make the defaults more beautiful? Or make the dlang.org templates easier to adopt for average users?My favorite one is: https://github.com/MartinNowak/scod. BTW, the default ddox (the one that comes with dub) is getting an upgrade soon: https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/ddox/pull/149 https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/ddox/pull/150.
Mar 11 2017
On Saturday, 11 March 2017 at 09:54:25 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:On Friday, 10 March 2017 at 07:58:36 UTC, Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] wrote:I opened a PR for this: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6621On Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 21:08:17 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:I tried ddox, and it worked pretty well. Only problem is that, ddox uses the json output of dmd, which is different from dmd -D result. dmd -D will include the then-branch of static-ifs and version blocks that's been compiled in, but the json output doesn't. Is this by design? Or can we make the json output consistent with the ddoc output?[...]My favorite one is: https://github.com/MartinNowak/scod. BTW, the default ddox (the one that comes with dub) is getting an upgrade soon: https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/ddox/pull/149 https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/ddox/pull/150.
Mar 11 2017