www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - d-programming-language.com

reply Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:
Okay, so is this the official documentation for the language?
Is there somewhere else I should be looking?

I ask because literally 50% if things I've looked up in the last 2 days are
undocumented.
Many of them have some heading reserved, with no content.

Here are some examples:
immutable Attribute__gshared Attributeshared Attributeinout Attribute
These would appear to be rather important keywords... I'd like to know what
they do :)

I currently have this error, and no idea what it's hassling me about, but
I'm suspecting I need to put 'shared' somewhere, though I don't really know
how it works...
  C:\Program Files
(x86)\D\dmd2\windows\bin\..\..\src\phobos\std\concurrency.d(329): Error:
static assert  "Aliases to mutable thread-local data not allowed."
Dec 10 2011
next sibling parent reply Trass3r <un known.com> writes:
Am 10.12.2011, 18:21 Uhr, schrieb Manu <turkeyman gmail.com>:


 Okay, so is this the official documentation for the language?
 Is there somewhere else I should be looking?


You mean .org
Yes this is the official documentation and yes it is lacking in some areas.
You may also get Andrei's book "The D programming language", that's a  
pretty comprehensive overview.
Dec 10 2011
parent Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:
On 10 December 2011 20:08, Trass3r <un known.com> wrote:


 Am 10.12.2011, 18:21 Uhr, schrieb Manu <turkeyman gmail.com>:


  Okay, so is this the official documentation for the language?

 Is there somewhere else I should be looking?


 You mean .org
 Yes this is the official documentation and yes it is lacking in some areas.
 You may also get Andrei's book "The D programming language", that's a
 pretty comprehensive overview.


As I invest myself further into the language I'll definitely get+read the
book (not so much free time sadly). But I'd like to think a language that
claims to be a simplification of C++ should be at least familiar, and where
it differs, extremely intuitive.
For the time being I'm just trying to write some small programs and gauge
my experience, which are fairly mixed at this point, but I remain
optimistic. Mostly documentation failure so far (even if the documentation
were thorough, I really hate the layout/presentation, though that hasn't
scared me off), and a couple of very unintuitive constructs which I may or
may not get used to :)
Dec 10 2011
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/10/2011 9:21 AM, Manu wrote:

 Okay, so is this the official documentation for the language?
 Is there somewhere else I should be looking?

 I ask because literally 50% if things I've looked up in the last 2 days are
 undocumented.
 Many of them have some heading reserved, with no content.

 Here are some examples:


     immutable Attribute


http://www.d-programming-language.org/const3.html


     __gshared Attribute


http://www.d-programming-language.org/migrate-to-shared.html


     shared Attribute


http://www.d-programming-language.org/migrate-to-shared.html


     inout Attribute


http://www.d-programming-language.org/function.html#inout-functions



 These would appear to be rather important keywords... I'd like to know what
they
 do :)


Yup. In general, you can find the documentation on a particular keyword by 
typing in:

    dman keyword
Dec 10 2011
next sibling parent reply Chad J <chadjoan __spam.is.bad__gmail.com> writes:
On 12/10/2011 02:28 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 
 Yup. In general, you can find the documentation on a particular keyword
 by typing in:
 
    dman keyword


Interesting, but doesn't work for me:

chad Hugin ~ $ dman auto
x-www-browser: No such file or directory
chad Hugin ~ $
Dec 10 2011
parent reply Chad J <chadjoan __spam.is.bad__gmail.com> writes:
On 12/10/2011 03:50 PM, Chad J wrote:

 On 12/10/2011 02:28 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 Yup. In general, you can find the documentation on a particular keyword
 by typing in:

    dman keyword


 
 Interesting, but doesn't work for me:
 
 chad Hugin ~ $ dman auto
 x-www-browser: No such file or directory
 chad Hugin ~ $


Almost forgot to mention:

This is on 64-bit Gentoo Linux.

chad Hugin ~ $ dmd
DMD64 D Compiler v2.056
Copyright (c) 1999-2011 by Digital Mars written by Walter Bright
Documentation: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/index.html
Usage:
  dmd files.d ... { -switch }
..etc...
Dec 10 2011
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/10/2011 12:52 PM, Chad J wrote:

 On 12/10/2011 03:50 PM, Chad J wrote:

 On 12/10/2011 02:28 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 Yup. In general, you can find the documentation on a particular keyword
 by typing in:

     dman keyword


 Interesting, but doesn't work for me:

 chad Hugin ~ $ dman auto
 x-www-browser: No such file or directory
 chad Hugin ~ $


 Almost forgot to mention:

 This is on 64-bit Gentoo Linux.


I think dman didn't get updated properly on that platform. It does work
properly 
on Windows.
Dec 10 2011
parent reply Mirko Pilger <mirko.pilger gmail.com> writes:
 I think dman didn't get updated properly on that platform. It does work
 properly on Windows.


obviously i'm missing something here. within the downloaded archives for 
v2.055 to v2.056 i can only find binaries of dman for freebsd, linux and 
osx but not for windows. :/
Dec 10 2011
next sibling parent Mirko Pilger <mirko.pilger gmail.com> writes:
 v2.055 to v2.056


v2.055 to v2.057b
Dec 10 2011
prev sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/10/2011 1:48 PM, Mirko Pilger wrote:

 I think dman didn't get updated properly on that platform. It does work
 properly on Windows.


 obviously i'm missing something here. within the downloaded archives for v2.055
 to v2.056 i can only find binaries of dman for freebsd, linux and osx but not
 for windows. :/


Oops!
Dec 10 2011
prev sibling parent reply Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:
On 10 December 2011 21:28, Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:


 On 12/10/2011 9:21 AM, Manu wrote:


 Okay, so is this the official documentation for the language?
 Is there somewhere else I should be looking?

 I ask because literally 50% if things I've looked up in the last 2 days
 are
 undocumented.
 Many of them have some heading reserved, with no content.

 Here are some examples:


    immutable Attribute


 http://www.d-programming-**language.org/const3.html<http://www.d-programming-language.org/const3.html>

     __gshared Attribute


 http://www.d-programming-**language.org/migrate-to-**shared.html<http://www.d-programming-language.org/migrate-to-shared.html>

     shared Attribute


 http://www.d-programming-**language.org/migrate-to-**shared.html<http://www.d-programming-language.org/migrate-to-shared.html>

     inout Attribute






Cheers for the links! Might be a good idea to take a few minutes and either
cut and paste some text, or paste a link to these articles in the empty
descriptions I referred to...


These would appear to be rather important keywords... I'd like to know what

 they
 do :)


 Yup. In general, you can find the documentation on a particular keyword by
 typing in:

   dman keyword


Cool cheers, noted, although to be completely honest, I'm a windows user,
and I will never type this. There should be a .chm in the distribution,
which is the standard expected by any windows developer from any sdk they
intend to take seriously. This is very easy to produce from the existing
webpage, although indexing it might take some investment.



 Dec 10 2011



 next sibling parent reply Mirko Pilger <mirko.pilger gmail.com>  writes:


 There should be a .chm in the distribution


+1



 Dec 10 2011



 next sibling parent  Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com>  writes:


Create a .chm with this: http://thecybershadow.net/d/docs/



 Dec 10 2011



prev sibling  parent  Manu <turkeyman gmail.com>  writes:


On 11 December 2011 02:04, Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com>wrote:


 Create a .chm with this: http://thecybershadow.net/d/docs/


Wow, see, that's exactly what I'm talking about! :) .. (although I tried
downloading that chm and it doesn't work...)
There's an amazing amount of work and energy spent here, but there's a lot
of examples of taking it 95%, and the distribution isn't quite there. How
hard would it be to put that in the distro (if it worked), and include a
link to the manual in the windows start menu beside the uninstaller...



 Dec 10 2011



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 12/10/2011 3:45 PM, Manu wrote:

 Cool cheers, noted, although to be completely honest, I'm a windows user, and I
 will never type this. There should be a .chm in the distribution, which is the
 standard expected by any windows developer from any sdk they intend to take
 seriously. This is very easy to produce from the existing webpage, although
 indexing it might take some investment.


I didn't think anyone preferred chm over web pages anymore!



 Dec 10 2011



 next sibling parent  Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com>  writes:


On Saturday, December 10, 2011 16:00:15 Walter Bright wrote:

 On 12/10/2011 3:45 PM, Manu wrote:

 Cool cheers, noted, although to be completely honest, I'm a windows
 user, and I will never type this. There should be a .chm in the
 distribution, which is the standard expected by any windows developer
 from any sdk they intend to take seriously. This is very easy to
 produce from the existing webpage, although indexing it might take some
 investment.


 
 I didn't think anyone preferred chm over web pages anymore!


I've never even _heard_ of chm, but then again, I'm mostly a Linux programmer.

- Jonathan M Davis



 Dec 10 2011



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Mirko Pilger <mirko.pilger gmail.com>  writes:


 I didn't think anyone preferred chm over web pages anymore!


personally i prefer chm > pdf > web for technical documentations and 
ebooks on the desktop.



 Dec 10 2011



  parent  Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 12/10/2011 4:10 PM, Mirko Pilger wrote:

 I didn't think anyone preferred chm over web pages anymore!


 personally i prefer chm > pdf > web for technical documentations and ebooks on
 the desktop.


We've got an ebook now for the D spec, and hope to get one done for Phobos.



 Dec 10 2011



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Peter Alexander <peter.alexander.au gmail.com>  writes:


On 11/12/11 12:00 AM, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 12/10/2011 3:45 PM, Manu wrote:

 Cool cheers, noted, although to be completely honest, I'm a windows
 user, and I
 will never type this. There should be a .chm in the distribution,
 which is the
 standard expected by any windows developer from any sdk they intend to
 take
 seriously. This is very easy to produce from the existing webpage,
 although
 indexing it might take some investment.


 I didn't think anyone preferred chm over web pages anymore!


I think either would be fine, but having to use the command line for 
anything on Windows is a no-no these days in terms of usability.



 Dec 10 2011



  parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 12/10/2011 4:46 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:

 I think either would be fine, but having to use the command line for anything
on
 Windows is a no-no these days in terms of usability.


Since dmd is a command line tool anyway, why is it a usability problem to use
dman?



 Dec 10 2011



 next sibling parent  Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com>  writes:


On Saturday, December 10, 2011 17:52:18 Walter Bright wrote:

 On 12/10/2011 4:46 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:

 I think either would be fine, but having to use the command line for
 anything on Windows is a no-no these days in terms of usability.


 
 Since dmd is a command line tool anyway, why is it a usability problem to
 use dman?


True, but I think that most Windows users expect to be using a compiler inside 
of an IDE, at which point, they aren't using the command line anyway. Many of 
them probably think that having to use dmd from the command line is a 
usability problem. I expect that they can avoid it with stuff iike VisualD 
though.

- Jonathan M Davis



 Dec 10 2011



prev sibling next sibling parent  Manu <turkeyman gmail.com>  writes:


On 11 December 2011 03:52, Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:


 On 12/10/2011 4:46 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:


 I think either would be fine, but having to use the command line for
 anything on
 Windows is a no-no these days in terms of usability.


 Since dmd is a command line tool anyway, why is it a usability problem to
 use dman?


Because VisualD is actually pretty good.



 Dec 11 2011



prev sibling  parent reply Peter Alexander <peter.alexander.au gmail.com>  writes:


On 11/12/11 1:52 AM, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 12/10/2011 4:46 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:

 I think either would be fine, but having to use the command line for
 anything on
 Windows is a no-no these days in terms of usability.


 Since dmd is a command line tool anyway, why is it a usability problem
 to use dman?


Why do you think so many people ask for IDEs? :-)

Windows people are used to Visual Studio doing everything for them. Hit 
F7 to compile, F5 to run under debugger, click on lines to set breakpoints.



 Dec 11 2011



 next sibling parent  Manu <turkeyman gmail.com>  writes:


On 11 December 2011 23:26, Peter Alexander <peter.alexander.au gmail.com>wrote:


 On 11/12/11 1:52 AM, Walter Bright wrote:


 On 12/10/2011 4:46 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:


 I think either would be fine, but having to use the command line for
 anything on
 Windows is a no-no these days in terms of usability.


 Since dmd is a command line tool anyway, why is it a usability problem
 to use dman?


 Why do you think so many people ask for IDEs? :-)

 Windows people are used to Visual Studio doing everything for them. Hit F7
 to compile, F5 to run under debugger, click on lines to set breakpoints.


Hilite a keyword or function, press F1, and the documentation appears
instantly... ;)
The moment a chm appears in the distro, there'll be a bug in VisualD to
make F1 work.

(Side note: I still seriously think you should consider collaborating with
VisualD and including it in the windows distribution directly. Put an
option in the installer, hook up the installation paths during installation)



 Dec 11 2011



prev sibling  parent reply Hans Uhlig <hans.uhlig teamaol.com>  writes:


On 12/11/2011 1:26 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:

 On 11/12/11 1:52 AM, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 12/10/2011 4:46 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:

 I think either would be fine, but having to use the command line for
 anything on
 Windows is a no-no these days in terms of usability.


 Since dmd is a command line tool anyway, why is it a usability problem
 to use dman?


 Why do you think so many people ask for IDEs? :-)

 Windows people are used to Visual Studio doing everything for them. Hit
 F7 to compile, F5 to run under debugger, click on lines to set breakpoints.


That's because cmd sucks. MS Powershell isn't much better. I have to use 
mintty just to be able to have a sane environment. Linux is a very shell 
oriented OS still even with Kde and Gnome. Microsoft did everything in 
its power to kill off the shell for "useability" reasons.



 Dec 12 2011



 next sibling parent  Manu <turkeyman gmail.com>  writes:


On 12 December 2011 20:09, Hans Uhlig <hans.uhlig teamaol.com> wrote:


 On 12/11/2011 1:26 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:


 On 11/12/11 1:52 AM, Walter Bright wrote:


 On 12/10/2011 4:46 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:


 I think either would be fine, but having to use the command line for
 anything on
 Windows is a no-no these days in terms of usability.


 Since dmd is a command line tool anyway, why is it a usability problem
 to use dman?


 Why do you think so many people ask for IDEs? :-)

 Windows people are used to Visual Studio doing everything for them. Hit
 F7 to compile, F5 to run under debugger, click on lines to set
 breakpoints.


 That's because cmd sucks. MS Powershell isn't much better. I have to use
 mintty just to be able to have a sane environment. Linux is a very shell
 oriented OS still even with Kde and Gnome. Microsoft did everything in its
 power to kill off the shell for "useability" reasons.


And they did a great job. Visual Studio is a fantastically productive
coding environment.



 Dec 12 2011



prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com>  writes:


On Monday, December 12, 2011 20:39:11 Manu wrote:

 On 12 December 2011 20:09, Hans Uhlig <hans.uhlig teamaol.com> wrote:

 On 12/11/2011 1:26 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:

 On 11/12/11 1:52 AM, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 12/10/2011 4:46 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:

 I think either would be fine, but having to use the command line
 for
 anything on
 Windows is a no-no these days in terms of usability.


 
 Since dmd is a command line tool anyway, why is it a usability
 problem
 to use dman?


 
 Why do you think so many people ask for IDEs? :-)
 
 Windows people are used to Visual Studio doing everything for them.
 Hit
 F7 to compile, F5 to run under debugger, click on lines to set
 breakpoints.


 
 That's because cmd sucks. MS Powershell isn't much better. I have to use
 mintty just to be able to have a sane environment. Linux is a very shell
 oriented OS still even with Kde and Gnome. Microsoft did everything in
 its power to kill off the shell for "useability" reasons.


 
 And they did a great job. Visual Studio is a fantastically productive
 coding environment.


Having a great GUI and a great shell are not mutually exclusive.

- Jonathan M Davis



 Dec 12 2011



 next sibling parent  Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com>  writes:


On 2011-12-12 20:03, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 On Monday, December 12, 2011 20:39:11 Manu wrote:

 On 12 December 2011 20:09, Hans Uhlig<hans.uhlig teamaol.com>  wrote:

 On 12/11/2011 1:26 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:

 On 11/12/11 1:52 AM, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 12/10/2011 4:46 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:

 I think either would be fine, but having to use the command line
 for
 anything on
 Windows is a no-no these days in terms of usability.


 Since dmd is a command line tool anyway, why is it a usability
 problem
 to use dman?


 Why do you think so many people ask for IDEs? :-)

 Windows people are used to Visual Studio doing everything for them.
 Hit
 F7 to compile, F5 to run under debugger, click on lines to set
 breakpoints.


 That's because cmd sucks. MS Powershell isn't much better. I have to use
 mintty just to be able to have a sane environment. Linux is a very shell
 oriented OS still even with Kde and Gnome. Microsoft did everything in
 its power to kill off the shell for "useability" reasons.


 And they did a great job. Visual Studio is a fantastically productive
 coding environment.


 Having a great GUI and a great shell are not mutually exclusive.

 - Jonathan M Davis


Mac OS X is the perfect example of that.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg



 Dec 12 2011



prev sibling  parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org>  writes:


On 12/12/11 1:03 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 On Monday, December 12, 2011 20:39:11 Manu wrote:

 On 12 December 2011 20:09, Hans Uhlig<hans.uhlig teamaol.com>  wrote:

 On 12/11/2011 1:26 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:

 On 11/12/11 1:52 AM, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 12/10/2011 4:46 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:

 I think either would be fine, but having to use the command line
 for
 anything on
 Windows is a no-no these days in terms of usability.


 Since dmd is a command line tool anyway, why is it a usability
 problem
 to use dman?


 Why do you think so many people ask for IDEs? :-)

 Windows people are used to Visual Studio doing everything for them.
 Hit
 F7 to compile, F5 to run under debugger, click on lines to set
 breakpoints.


 That's because cmd sucks. MS Powershell isn't much better. I have to use
 mintty just to be able to have a sane environment. Linux is a very shell
 oriented OS still even with Kde and Gnome. Microsoft did everything in
 its power to kill off the shell for "useability" reasons.


 And they did a great job. Visual Studio is a fantastically productive
 coding environment.


 Having a great GUI and a great shell are not mutually exclusive.

 - Jonathan M Davis


Look at the Mac...

Andrei



 Dec 12 2011



  parent  Manu <turkeyman gmail.com>  writes:


On 13 December 2011 01:59, Andrei Alexandrescu <
SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:


 On 12/12/11 1:03 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:


 On Monday, December 12, 2011 20:39:11 Manu wrote:


 On 12 December 2011 20:09, Hans Uhlig<hans.uhlig teamaol.com>  wrote:


 On 12/11/2011 1:26 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:


 On 11/12/11 1:52 AM, Walter Bright wrote:


 On 12/10/2011 4:46 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:


 I think either would be fine, but having to use the command line
 for
 anything on
 Windows is a no-no these days in terms of usability.


 Since dmd is a command line tool anyway, why is it a usability
 problem
 to use dman?


 Why do you think so many people ask for IDEs? :-)

 Windows people are used to Visual Studio doing everything for them.
 Hit
 F7 to compile, F5 to run under debugger, click on lines to set
 breakpoints.


 That's because cmd sucks. MS Powershell isn't much better. I have to use
 mintty just to be able to have a sane environment. Linux is a very shell
 oriented OS still even with Kde and Gnome. Microsoft did everything in
 its power to kill off the shell for "useability" reasons.


 And they did a great job. Visual Studio is a fantastically productive
 coding environment.


 Having a great GUI and a great shell are not mutually exclusive.

 - Jonathan M Davis


 Look at the Mac...

 Andrei


Have you actually tried to use XCode professionally? ... ;)



 Dec 12 2011



prev sibling  parent reply Peter Alexander <peter.alexander.au gmail.com>  writes:


On 12/12/11 6:09 PM, Hans Uhlig wrote:

 On 12/11/2011 1:26 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:

 On 11/12/11 1:52 AM, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 12/10/2011 4:46 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:

 I think either would be fine, but having to use the command line for
 anything on
 Windows is a no-no these days in terms of usability.


 Since dmd is a command line tool anyway, why is it a usability problem
 to use dman?


 Why do you think so many people ask for IDEs? :-)

 Windows people are used to Visual Studio doing everything for them. Hit
 F7 to compile, F5 to run under debugger, click on lines to set
 breakpoints.


 That's because cmd sucks. MS Powershell isn't much better. I have to use
 mintty just to be able to have a sane environment. Linux is a very shell
 oriented OS still even with Kde and Gnome. Microsoft did everything in
 its power to kill off the shell for "useability" reasons.


I agree that cmd sucks.

I disagree that people use Visual Studio because cmd sucks.

At home I'm a Mac user, but at work I use Visual Studio. I've used 
Eclipse, XCode, code blocks, vim+makefiles, and I can easily say that 
Visual Studio is far and away the best development environment in 
existence. Nothing even comes close to it.



 Dec 13 2011



 next sibling parent  Manu <turkeyman gmail.com>  writes:


On 13 December 2011 21:50, Peter Alexander <peter.alexander.au gmail.com>wrote:


 On 12/12/11 6:09 PM, Hans Uhlig wrote:


 On 12/11/2011 1:26 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:


 On 11/12/11 1:52 AM, Walter Bright wrote:


 On 12/10/2011 4:46 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:


 I think either would be fine, but having to use the command line for
 anything on
 Windows is a no-no these days in terms of usability.


 Since dmd is a command line tool anyway, why is it a usability problem
 to use dman?


 Why do you think so many people ask for IDEs? :-)

 Windows people are used to Visual Studio doing everything for them. Hit
 F7 to compile, F5 to run under debugger, click on lines to set
 breakpoints.


 That's because cmd sucks. MS Powershell isn't much better. I have to use
 mintty just to be able to have a sane environment. Linux is a very shell
 oriented OS still even with Kde and Gnome. Microsoft did everything in
 its power to kill off the shell for "useability" reasons.


 I agree that cmd sucks.

 I disagree that people use Visual Studio because cmd sucks.

 At home I'm a Mac user, but at work I use Visual Studio. I've used
 Eclipse, XCode, code blocks, vim+makefiles, and I can easily say that
 Visual Studio is far and away the best development environment in
 existence. Nothing even comes close to it.


+100 ;)



 Dec 13 2011



prev sibling  parent  "F i L" <witte2008 gmail.com>  writes:


Peter Alexander wrote:

 I agree that cmd sucks.

 I disagree that people use Visual Studio because cmd sucks.

 At home I'm a Mac user, but at work I use Visual Studio. I've 
 used Eclipse, XCode, code blocks, vim+makefiles, and I can 
 easily say that Visual Studio is far and away the best 
 development environment in existence. Nothing even comes close 
 to it.


For D, MonoD comes pretty close. In fact, it's actually better 
than VisualD (atm) because of it's correct code-completion and 
cross-platformness.



 Dec 13 2011



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Manu <turkeyman gmail.com>  writes:


On 11 December 2011 02:00, Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:


 On 12/10/2011 3:45 PM, Manu wrote:


 Cool cheers, noted, although to be completely honest, I'm a windows user,
 and I
 will never type this. There should be a .chm in the distribution, which
 is the
 standard expected by any windows developer from any sdk they intend to
 take
 seriously. This is very easy to produce from the existing webpage,
 although
 indexing it might take some investment.


 I didn't think anyone preferred chm over web pages anymore!


Definitely the standard where I'm from (10 years in the video games
universe, almost exclusively windows based sdk's). The expected
functionality is to have the chm open sitting there while you work, type
the first 2-3 letters of the keyword, function name, etc into the 'index'
list, the topic appears and you immediately have your answer. There is also
a lightning fast 'search' there for more abstract topics.
The DirectX documentation is usually held in the highest regard by most
people I've worked with, it's among the best examples of 'perfect'
documentation as considered by any windows based developer. Most console
vendors provide a similarly high quality and formatted set of reference
material.

That would be ideal, but that said, I'd be happy with the website if it
were complete, and I didn't have to start digging every time I look
something up. And even then, the descriptions are often vague, and I find
myself chasing examples before I can even understand the documentation (see
std.concurrency) ;) ... (note: I'm still failing to solve my problems, all
with sharing and access rights to local variables passed between threads)

In abstract, for me, as an end user of the language/libraries, my
experience/expectations with most SDK's is that if it takes me longer than
10-20 seconds or so to get the answer to a trivial question, short, concise
and articulate, I start to feel frustrated and like I'm wasting time.
I think it leaves a really good impression with new comers to the language
if they can just get into it and feel immediately productive. After all, I
think for a lot of people (including myself), the promise of D is that of
"C++ done right". If I can't just start coding and feel generally
productive (sure, some language differences will take some time to adapt
to), then it really dilutes that dream very quickly, which is what, I
think, will attract most new comers to the language. So it's imperative to
get that part just right, and that's all about the docs and presentation
for me.



 Dec 10 2011



  parent  Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 12/10/2011 4:44 PM, Manu wrote:

 So it's imperative to get that part just right, and that's all
 about the docs and presentation for me.


I agree with you.



 Dec 10 2011



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com>  writes:


On 12/11/11, Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 I didn't think anyone preferred chm over web pages anymore!


It is for me. All I have to do to get to some documentation of a
symbol is highlight the symbol and hit F1, and the CHM with the
section on that symbol comes up.

Well now I could do the same thing with dman and it would open my
browser instead. But dman wasn't around before.. ;)



 Dec 10 2011



  parent  Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 12/10/2011 5:05 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:

 Well now I could do the same thing with dman and it would open my
 browser instead. But dman wasn't around before.. ;)


dman has suffered a bit from lack of TLC. But that can be fixed.



 Dec 10 2011



prev sibling  parent  Somedude <lovelydear mailmetrash.com>  writes:


Le 11/12/2011 01:00, Walter Bright a écrit :

 On 12/10/2011 3:45 PM, Manu wrote:

 Cool cheers, noted, although to be completely honest, I'm a windows
 user, and I
 will never type this. There should be a .chm in the distribution,
 which is the
 standard expected by any windows developer from any sdk they intend to
 take
 seriously. This is very easy to produce from the existing webpage,
 although
 indexing it might take some investment.


 
 I didn't think anyone preferred chm over web pages anymore!


Mostly Java programmer here.

I ALWAYS prefer the chm version of all the Java documentation over
google + official web doc. With the index, it's so much faster.



 Dec 11 2011



prev sibling  parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net>  writes:


On Saturday, 10 December 2011 at 23:45:50 UTC, Manu wrote:

 and I will never type this. There should be a .chm in the 
 distribution


http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5470



 Dec 10 2011



  parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 12/10/2011 4:16 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:

 On Saturday, 10 December 2011 at 23:45:50 UTC, Manu wrote:

 and I will never type this. There should be a .chm in the distribution


 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5470


Awesome, I had overlooked that. Can you do a pull request to put
chmgen.d into a subdirectory of 
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/d-programming-language.org, along
with 
the instructions you provided?



 Dec 10 2011



  parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 12/10/2011 6:01 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 12/10/2011 4:16 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:

 On Saturday, 10 December 2011 at 23:45:50 UTC, Manu wrote:

 and I will never type this. There should be a .chm in the distribution


 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5470


 Awesome, I had overlooked that. Can you do a pull request to put
 chmgen.d into a subdirectory of
 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/d-programming-language.org, along
with
 the instructions you provided?


Essentially, I'd like to have the .chm files automatically built by the
makefile 
for the html documentation.



 Dec 10 2011



 next sibling parent reply Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


Walter Bright Wrote:

 Essentially, I'd like to have the .chm files automatically built by the
makefile 
 for the html documentation.


I'm curious: what kind of setup do you have there?

The jump list in D's lib docs are very bad right now, and we could improve the
javascript behind them, but I'd prefer to do it on the server.

I did a D program to make it happen back in like February, but I don't know
how to integrate it into your process. (I didn't think it would be a
possibility until now!)



 Dec 10 2011



 next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 12/10/2011 6:13 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 Walter Bright Wrote:

 Essentially, I'd like to have the .chm files automatically built by the
makefile
 for the html documentation.


 I'm curious: what kind of setup do you have there?

 The jump list in D's lib docs are very bad right now, and we could improve the
 javascript behind them, but I'd prefer to do it on the server.

 I did a D program to make it happen back in like February, but I don't know
 how to integrate it into your process. (I didn't think it would be a
possibility until now!)


It just statically serves html. No cgi.



 Dec 10 2011



  parent  Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


Walter Bright Wrote:

 It just statically serves html. No cgi.


See my reply to Andrei - the program modifies the static
html ahead of time, so it just needs to be part of the build
process, not part of the deployment.

Here's a link to see its output:
http://arsdnet.net/d-web-site/std_stdio.html

I detailed the things in my other post.



 Dec 10 2011



prev sibling  parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org>  writes:


On 12/10/11 8:13 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 Walter Bright Wrote:

 Essentially, I'd like to have the .chm files automatically built by the
makefile
 for the html documentation.


 I'm curious: what kind of setup do you have there?


It's a makefile you can find on github.


 The jump list in D's lib docs are very bad right now, and we could improve the
 javascript behind them, but I'd prefer to do it on the server.

 I did a D program to make it happen back in like February, but I don't know
 how to integrate it into your process. (I didn't think it would be a
possibility until now!)


Anything automated rox.


Andrei



 Dec 10 2011



  parent reply Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

 Anything automated rox.


cool. I updated the program today to handle the new site. Take a
look at the output:

http://arsdnet.net/d-web-site/std_stdio.html

Biggest improvement imo is anchors work better:
http://arsdnet.net/d-web-site/std_stdio.html#File.writeln

is distinct from #writeln.


You might remember this from last winter when you introduced
the cheatsheet idea.

I figured I could automate the process by examining the html, and
this is the result. (Improved a little tonight from how it was last time.)


What it does is determine the fully qualified names from the html structure,
then pulls out the first paragraph for each name.

Using that, it fixes the link and generates the table, categorizing the
found names as struct, class, function, enum, or unknown, with some
support for subcategorizing if we add tags to the ddoc (I can write a macro
to help that along)


Anyway, with that in hand, it modifies the html to add these tables on
top of each section.


First, there's the module scope names, sorted alphabetically.

Then, if you click struct File, you'll see that under it's description, right
before it's members, there's a sub-table of member quick references.

They are not categorized by class/struct since I think that's overkill in
there. But, they are sorted by name and link right to the inside.

If a file has more nesting, it should just work like this all the way through
recursively.



This little program runs on the command line and modifies a given html
file, just writing out another static file you can upload to the server.



Anyway it's pretty much complete here. Let me know what you think.



 Dec 10 2011



 next sibling parent  Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


Also, I was just wondering how it'd work on a page like std.container

http://www.d-programming-language.org/phobos/std_container.html

which already has a hand written table up top. So I ran it:

http://arsdnet.net/d-web-site/std_container.html

and I'm ok with it. In the d-p-l page, can you tell quickly what containers
are actually offered? I can't... the list up top kinda tells you, but that's
really ugly.

But after running my program on it, the struct/class quick reference
tables give it right away, and I don't think it's too full, even with the
hand written table.

So I like it. Only change I might make is combining the struct and
class tables, and maybe some spacing issues.

Again though, I'm open to ideas.



 Dec 10 2011



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com>  writes:


On Saturday, December 10, 2011 23:14:20 Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 Anyway it's pretty much complete here. Let me know what you think.


Overall, I like what I see here, but I definitely that that ddoc itself should 
be fixed so that it generates proper anchors instead of requiring you to 
manipulate the page afterwards. In fact, as much of the documentation-
generation as possible should be in ddoc IMHO. That way, anyone can get 
reasonable documentation for their own projects.

- Jonathan M Davis



 Dec 10 2011



  parent reply Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


Jonathan M Davis Wrote:

  In fact, as much of the documentation-
 generation as possible should be in ddoc IMHO. That way, anyone can get 
 reasonable documentation for their own projects.


I agree to an extent, but at the same time, I like keeping ddoc itself fairly
simple.

Correct anchors from ddoc are a no-brainer, it definitely should be doing that.

I'd also like for it to mark off any D names it sees, so we can link them right
into
a search engine or something to do automatic cross referencing. (I want to add
this to my program too, but regardless, the compiler would do a much better job
at it than a regular expression or whatever I can do with the text.)

I'm still meaning to revamp the compiler's default set of macros too, when I
get around to it.


But, I'm mixed on things like tables of contents. On one hand, it's definitely
a useful thing to have, but on the other, how much can ddoc do without
getting a lot more complicated?

I'd hate to add a bunch of special cases in there, or worse yet, a whole bloody
scripting language, to cover everyone's use-case. If we do tables, what's next?
Though a nice content listing probably *is* worth it...

Keeping ddoc simple and running the generated document through an additional
program gives you all the flexibility of D - or whatever - without adding to the
compiler.

If you take a look at my program: http://arsdnet.net/d-web-site/improveddoc.d
you can see that it isn't terribly complex, but part of that is that it uses my
html dom library and std.algorithm to help out; of we replicated that inside
the compiler it might be a lot messier.



 Dec 10 2011



  parent reply Hans Uhlig <hans.uhlig teamaol.com>  writes:


On 12/10/2011 9:52 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 Jonathan M Davis Wrote:

   In fact, as much of the documentation-
 generation as possible should be in ddoc IMHO. That way, anyone can get
 reasonable documentation for their own projects.


 I agree to an extent, but at the same time, I like keeping ddoc itself fairly
 simple.

 Correct anchors from ddoc are a no-brainer, it definitely should be doing that.

 I'd also like for it to mark off any D names it sees, so we can link them
right into
 a search engine or something to do automatic cross referencing. (I want to add
 this to my program too, but regardless, the compiler would do a much better job
 at it than a regular expression or whatever I can do with the text.)

 I'm still meaning to revamp the compiler's default set of macros too, when I
 get around to it.


 But, I'm mixed on things like tables of contents. On one hand, it's definitely
 a useful thing to have, but on the other, how much can ddoc do without
 getting a lot more complicated?

 I'd hate to add a bunch of special cases in there, or worse yet, a whole bloody
 scripting language, to cover everyone's use-case. If we do tables, what's next?
 Though a nice content listing probably *is* worth it...

 Keeping ddoc simple and running the generated document through an additional
 program gives you all the flexibility of D - or whatever - without adding to
the
 compiler.

 If you take a look at my program: http://arsdnet.net/d-web-site/improveddoc.d
 you can see that it isn't terribly complex, but part of that is that it uses my
 html dom library and std.algorithm to help out; of we replicated that inside
 the compiler it might be a lot messier.


Actually it might be nice instead of ddoc creating HTML if it created an 
intermediate XML or JSON format of documentation that could be 
transformed via XSLT+CSS into the final product be it html, chm, 
manpages etc.



 Dec 12 2011



  parent  "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Monday, 12 December 2011 at 18:43:43 UTC, Hans Uhlig wrote:

 Actually it might be nice instead of ddoc creating HTML if it 
 created an intermediate XML or JSON format of documentation 
 that could be transformed via XSLT+CSS into the final product 
 be it html, chm, manpages etc.


The macro system lets you do that pretty well already
(my program just treats the html as xml basically anyway).

dmd -X also includes the documentation comments in the json
it generates for each item. Though, this is unparsed doc
comments so it's not as useful as the html you output.



 Dec 12 2011



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org>  writes:


On 12/10/11 10:14 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

 Anything automated rox.


 cool. I updated the program today to handle the new site. Take a
 look at the output:

 http://arsdnet.net/d-web-site/std_stdio.html


[snip]

Yah, there's definite improvement. Adding categorization by hand will 
certainly help, and I think the program should not specify 
"Uncategorized" when there's no other category. There should also be no 
line after the category - color and boldface should be distinguishing 
enough.

We could later on experiment with some collapsible stuff.

Overall I see no shame in generating structured output with ddoc and 
then postprocessing it. Ddoc is supposed to generate structured 
documentation from code, not advanced cross-reference stuff and the 
such. Of course local improvements do make sense (e.g. distinguish 
member names from top-level names etc).

I would try to compel you to put the proposed changes in the form of a 
pull request, but first I think you may want to work with Walter on 
finalizing the "try now" code. We should stay with one thing until it's 
done.


Thanks,

Andrei



 Dec 10 2011



 next sibling parent  "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Sunday, 11 December 2011 at 06:52:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 I think the program should not specify "Uncategorized" when 
 there's no other category.


OK.

Now, on the category tags, part of me wants to link back to
something along the lines of my dpldocs.info site - a dynamic
program to search the docs. (Which I'm in the process of revising)

But, since there's no dynamic code on the live site, what might be
best is making a few static pages for the categories, just 
pre-generating
them too. Something along the lines of a site map, perhaps with
a human written conceptual overview of the concept eventually too.


 I would try to compel you to put the proposed changes in the 
 form of a pull request, but first I think you may want to work 
 with Walter on finalizing the "try now" code.


What happened there was it was fully operational.... and then
the my server died. Hardware failure.

I haven't replaced it yet, but do have something on the todo list
about it.

As soon as I bring a server back up, the try now buttons should
reappear with ease; I think the javascript link is still there.

Anyway though that hardware situation is the bottleneck there.



 Dec 11 2011



prev sibling  parent  Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com>  writes:


On 2011-12-11 07:52, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 On 12/10/11 10:14 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

 Anything automated rox.


 cool. I updated the program today to handle the new site. Take a
 look at the output:

 http://arsdnet.net/d-web-site/std_stdio.html


 [snip]

 Yah, there's definite improvement. Adding categorization by hand will
 certainly help, and I think the program should not specify
 "Uncategorized" when there's no other category. There should also be no
 line after the category - color and boldface should be distinguishing
 enough.

 We could later on experiment with some collapsible stuff.

 Overall I see no shame in generating structured output with ddoc and
 then postprocessing it. Ddoc is supposed to generate structured
 documentation from code, not advanced cross-reference stuff and the
 such. Of course local improvements do make sense (e.g. distinguish
 member names from top-level names etc).


I think this is the wrong approach and I think ddoc should generate 
cross-references.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg



 Dec 12 2011



prev sibling  parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com>  writes:


On 2011-12-11 05:14, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

 Anything automated rox.


 cool. I updated the program today to handle the new site. Take a
 look at the output:

 http://arsdnet.net/d-web-site/std_stdio.html

 Biggest improvement imo is anchors work better:
 http://arsdnet.net/d-web-site/std_stdio.html#File.writeln

 is distinct from #writeln.


 You might remember this from last winter when you introduced
 the cheatsheet idea.

 I figured I could automate the process by examining the html, and
 this is the result. (Improved a little tonight from how it was last time.)


 What it does is determine the fully qualified names from the html structure,
 then pulls out the first paragraph for each name.

 Using that, it fixes the link and generates the table, categorizing the
 found names as struct, class, function, enum, or unknown, with some
 support for subcategorizing if we add tags to the ddoc (I can write a macro
 to help that along)


 Anyway, with that in hand, it modifies the html to add these tables on
 top of each section.


 First, there's the module scope names, sorted alphabetically.

 Then, if you click struct File, you'll see that under it's description, right
 before it's members, there's a sub-table of member quick references.

 They are not categorized by class/struct since I think that's overkill in
 there. But, they are sorted by name and link right to the inside.

 If a file has more nesting, it should just work like this all the way through
 recursively.



 This little program runs on the command line and modifies a given html
 file, just writing out another static file you can upload to the server.



 Anyway it's pretty much complete here. Let me know what you think.


Wouldn't it be better if ddoc generate the correct HTML from the beginning.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg



 Dec 12 2011



  parent  "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Monday, 12 December 2011 at 12:10:29 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 Wouldn't it be better if ddoc generate the correct HTML from 
 the beginning.


I touched upon this in another post... I say both yes and no.

Yes because it'd be nice. A table of contents seems generally
useful, and correct anchors and reference macros are braindead.
(I'll see about implementing the name macros myself eventually.)

But, no because I think it's going to complicate ddoc and still
not cover everything. Suppose we add macros for the table of
contents. What if we then want to add category sorting? That
was an extra about 5 lines in my program, but I think it'd be
fairly complex inside ddoc itself.


Basically I view ddoc as being a parser that just happenes to
be able to do human readable output.. but the real goal, in my
mind, is to process it into something a computer can read back in
easily to produce the final product.

So, ddoc should make available all the information is has, but
not necessarily do any formatting of it.



 Dec 12 2011



prev sibling  parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net>  writes:


On Sunday, 11 December 2011 at 02:07:34 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 12/10/2011 6:01 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 12/10/2011 4:16 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:

 On Saturday, 10 December 2011 at 23:45:50 UTC, Manu wrote:

 and I will never type this. There should be a .chm in the 
 distribution


 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5470


 Awesome, I had overlooked that. Can you do a pull request to 
 put
 chmgen.d into a subdirectory of
 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/d-programming-language.org, 
 along with
 the instructions you provided?


 Essentially, I'd like to have the .chm files automatically 
 built by the makefile for the html documentation.


I began work on this and ported chmgen to D2. However, chmgen was 
written to operate on the files as they appear in the DMD zip 
files, not the ones on d-programming-language.org. How is the zip 
file documentation generated?



 Dec 11 2011



  parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 12/11/2011 9:04 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:

 I began work on this and ported chmgen to D2. However, chmgen was written to
 operate on the files as they appear in the DMD zip files, not the ones on
 d-programming-language.org. How is the zip file documentation generated?


Do you mean it works on the html files rather than the dd files?



 Dec 11 2011



  parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net>  writes:


On Monday, 12 December 2011 at 05:08:28 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 12/11/2011 9:04 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:

 I began work on this and ported chmgen to D2. However, chmgen 
 was written to
 operate on the files as they appear in the DMD zip files, not 
 the ones on
 d-programming-language.org. How is the zip file documentation 
 generated?


 Do you mean it works on the html files rather than the dd files?


Yes, that's correct. It parses the HTML files with a few regular 
expressions to adjust the layout a bit and fix links. After all, 
CHM == "Compiled HTML Help".



 Dec 11 2011



  parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 12/11/2011 9:11 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:

 On Monday, 12 December 2011 at 05:08:28 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 12/11/2011 9:04 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:

 I began work on this and ported chmgen to D2. However, chmgen was written to
 operate on the files as they appear in the DMD zip files, not the ones on
 d-programming-language.org. How is the zip file documentation generated?


 Do you mean it works on the html files rather than the dd files?


 Yes, that's correct. It parses the HTML files with a few regular expressions to
 adjust the layout a bit and fix links. After all, CHM == "Compiled HTML Help".


Then add it to the makefile as depending on the html files, rather than the dd 
files. (The makefile generates the html files.)



 Dec 11 2011



  parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net>  writes:


On Monday, 12 December 2011 at 05:33:29 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 12/11/2011 9:11 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:

 On Monday, 12 December 2011 at 05:08:28 UTC, Walter Bright 
 wrote:

 On 12/11/2011 9:04 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:

 I began work on this and ported chmgen to D2. However, 
 chmgen was written to
 operate on the files as they appear in the DMD zip files, 
 not the ones on
 d-programming-language.org. How is the zip file 
 documentation generated?


 Do you mean it works on the html files rather than the dd 
 files?


 Yes, that's correct. It parses the HTML files with a few 
 regular expressions to
 adjust the layout a bit and fix links. After all, CHM == 
 "Compiled HTML Help".


 Then add it to the makefile as depending on the html files, 
 rather than the dd files. (The makefile generates the html 
 files.)


Yes, that was what I was going to do. However, the layout of 
files generated for d-programming-language.org differs 
substantially from those included in the zip file, so I'm asking 
if there's a way to avoid having to modify chmgen to work with 
the d-p-l.org version.



 Dec 11 2011



  parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 12/11/2011 9:46 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:

 Yes, that was what I was going to do. However, the layout of files generated
for
 d-programming-language.org differs substantially from those included in the zip
 file, so I'm asking if there's a way to avoid having to modify chmgen to work
 with the d-p-l.org version.


You could add a parameter to chmgen to tell it where the files are.



 Dec 11 2011



  parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net>  writes:


On Monday, 12 December 2011 at 06:57:52 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 12/11/2011 9:46 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:

 Yes, that was what I was going to do. However, the layout of 
 files generated for
 d-programming-language.org differs substantially from those 
 included in the zip
 file, so I'm asking if there's a way to avoid having to modify 
 chmgen to work
 with the d-p-l.org version.


 You could add a parameter to chmgen to tell it where the files 
 are.


Certainly, but that goes against the idea of a chm makefile 
target.

Anyway, it's probably worth doing the work of using the d-p-l.org 
files. I could use the opportunity to move some of the hacks out 
of chmgen into the docs as proper fixes.



 Dec 12 2011



  parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 12/12/2011 8:57 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:

 Anyway, it's probably worth doing the work of using the d-p-l.org files. I
could
 use the opportunity to move some of the hacks out of chmgen into the docs as
 proper fixes.


I do appreciate the effort you're putting into this. I think chmgen will be a 
valuable addition.



 Dec 12 2011



  parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net>  writes:


On Monday, 12 December 2011 at 22:28:30 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 12/12/2011 8:57 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:

 Anyway, it's probably worth doing the work of using the 
 d-p-l.org files. I could
 use the opportunity to move some of the hacks out of chmgen 
 into the docs as
 proper fixes.


 I do appreciate the effort you're putting into this. I think 
 chmgen will be a valuable addition.


Thanks. Here it is:

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/d-programming-language.org/pull/46



 Dec 13 2011



  parent reply Mirko Pilger <mirko.pilger gmail.com>  writes:


 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/d-programming-language.org/pull/46


looking forward to try this out. thanks for your work.



 Dec 13 2011



  parent  "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net>  writes:


On Tuesday, 13 December 2011 at 15:23:59 UTC, Mirko Pilger wrote:

 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/d-programming-language.org/pull/46


 looking forward to try this out. thanks for your work.


Here is the compiled file from current docs:

http://dump.thecybershadow.net/115d4504aa073d18ad7de9bf862095e6/d.chm



 Dec 13 2011