www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

D - A bit more up-to-date PDF manual. Check it.

reply ssuukk <ssuukk .go2.pl> writes:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Don't flame. Someone said it's binary group. Check my new pdf, and give 
your opinions. Phobos docs will be in separate pdf...
Jan 22 2004
next sibling parent reply ssuukk <ssuukk .go2.pl> writes:
Ah, forgot to tell. It's still a bit rough around the edges. I know.

ssuukk wrote:
 Don't flame. Someone said it's binary group. Check my new pdf, and give 
 your opinions. Phobos docs will be in separate pdf...
 

Jan 22 2004
next sibling parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"ssuukk" <ssuukk .go2.pl> wrote in message
news:buonq7$24ak$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Ah, forgot to tell. It's still a bit rough around the edges. I know.

 ssuukk wrote:
 Don't flame. Someone said it's binary group. Check my new pdf, and give
 your opinions. Phobos docs will be in separate pdf...


This is great work. The old one is getting pretty outdated. Could you add in the ctod.html, etc., pages too?
Jan 22 2004
next sibling parent reply ssuukk <ssuukk .go2.pl> writes:
Walter wrote:
 "ssuukk" <ssuukk .go2.pl> wrote in message
 news:buonq7$24ak$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
Ah, forgot to tell. It's still a bit rough around the edges. I know.

ssuukk wrote:

Don't flame. Someone said it's binary group. Check my new pdf, and give
your opinions. Phobos docs will be in separate pdf...


This is great work. The old one is getting pretty outdated. Could you add in the ctod.html, etc., pages too?

No prob. Just tell me if you think it should be divided differentyly (I mean chapters, subsection nesting and so on).
Jan 22 2004
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"ssuukk" <ssuukk .go2.pl> wrote in message
news:buqjl8$241n$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Walter wrote:
 This is great work. The old one is getting pretty outdated. Could you


 the ctod.html, etc., pages too?

mean chapters, subsection nesting and so on).

Redesigning the layout is probably too much work, I'd just stick with the layout of the html version. Especially since eventually it'll need to be done again :-(
Jan 23 2004
parent reply ssuukk <ssuukk .go2.pl> writes:
Walter wrote:
 "ssuukk" <ssuukk .go2.pl> wrote in message
 news:buqjl8$241n$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
Walter wrote:

This is great work. The old one is getting pretty outdated. Could you


add in
the ctod.html, etc., pages too?

No prob. Just tell me if you think it should be divided differentyly (I mean chapters, subsection nesting and so on).

Redesigning the layout is probably too much work, I'd just stick with the layout of the html version. Especially since eventually it'll need to be done again :-(

that latex2html will make much nicer pages, than by-hand html. ;-) Not to mention LateX is more strict about formatting.
Jan 23 2004
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"ssuukk" <ssuukk .go2.pl> wrote in message
news:bur0rr$2qpg$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Awww. So maybe in such case we'll make it the opposite way: I believe
 that latex2html will make much nicer pages, than by-hand html. ;-) Not
 to mention LateX is more strict about formatting.

It took me years to learn html!
Jan 23 2004
parent reply ssuukk <ssuukk .go2.pl> writes:
Awww. So maybe in such case we'll make it the opposite way: I believe
that latex2html will make much nicer pages, than by-hand html. ;-) Not
to mention LateX is more strict about formatting.

It took me years to learn html!

Jan 26 2004
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"ssuukk" <ssuukk .go2.pl> wrote in message
news:bv2ip9$2lsc$1 digitaldaemon.com...
Awww. So maybe in such case we'll make it the opposite way: I believe
that latex2html will make much nicer pages, than by-hand html. ;-) Not
to mention LateX is more strict about formatting.

It took me years to learn html!


I have no idea how hard latex is. I'll take your word for it such a method is impractical <g>. I'm used to HTML because it is similar to the old DEC Runoff format.
Jan 27 2004
parent reply ssuukk <ssuukk .go2.pl> writes:
Awww. So maybe in such case we'll make it the opposite way: I believe
that latex2html will make much nicer pages, than by-hand html. ;-) Not
to mention LateX is more strict about formatting.

It took me years to learn html!

But you don't think I converted HTML to LaTeX by hand, do you? :-)

I have no idea how hard latex is. I'll take your word for it such a method is impractical <g>. I'm used to HTML because it is similar to the old DEC Runoff format.

the final version it will be with nice index, and any other things good book needs, and since it is much more work to do html2latex (it took me several days to make it look like it is now) than latex2html (it's automatic), I guess - for the Final Big Manual Update it would be better to do it LaTeX to HTML - the result will look much better than by-hand HTML. :-) But that's only my suggestion. LaTeX is very simple and its source is much cleaner to read by human, than HTML. I can send you the source for this pdf, if you want to see how it looks like. DEC Runoff? That must be "HP Runoff" by now? ;-)
Jan 27 2004
parent reply Marcel Meyer <meyerm fs.tum.de> writes:
Awww. So maybe in such case we'll make it the opposite way: I believe
that latex2html will make much nicer pages, than by-hand html. ;-) Not
to mention LateX is more strict about formatting.



method is impractical <g>.

the final version it will be with nice index, and any other things good book needs, and since it is much more work to do html2latex (it took me several days to make it look like it is now) than latex2html (it's automatic), I guess - for the Final Big Manual Update it would be better to do it LaTeX to HTML - the result will look much better than by-hand HTML. :-) But that's only my suggestion. LaTeX is very simple and its source is much cleaner to read by human, than HTML. I can send you the source for this pdf, if you want to see how it looks like.

A voice from the off... ;-) We are using LaTeX to even create our internal "magazine" (~1000 pcs / release) - the impulsiv. It just looks great with a sensible amount of work. And later it is just converted to HTML and can be brought online. You should _really_ go the LaTeX (or lout - a nice LaTeX alternative ;-) ) to HTML way. Trust me (and ssuukk) - especially since LaTeX was once developed to write a -- sorry, the computer science book *g*
Jan 27 2004
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Marcel Meyer" <meyerm fs.tum.de> wrote in message
news:bv5vmj$26u6$1 digitaldaemon.com...
Awww. So maybe in such case we'll make it the opposite way: I believe
that latex2html will make much nicer pages, than by-hand html. ;-)






to mention LateX is more strict about formatting.



method is impractical <g>.

the final version it will be with nice index, and any other things good book needs, and since it is much more work to do html2latex (it took me several days to make it look like it is now) than latex2html (it's automatic), I guess - for the Final Big Manual Update it would be better to do it LaTeX to HTML - the result will look much better than by-hand HTML. :-) But that's only my suggestion. LaTeX is very simple and its source is much cleaner to read by human, than HTML. I can send you the source for this pdf, if you want to see how it looks like.

A voice from the off... ;-) We are using LaTeX to even create our internal "magazine" (~1000 pcs / release) - the impulsiv. It just looks great with a sensible amount of work. And later it is just converted to HTML and can be brought online. You should _really_ go the LaTeX (or lout - a nice LaTeX alternative ;-) ) to HTML way. Trust me (and ssuukk) - especially since LaTeX was once developed to write a -- sorry, the computer science book *g*

Isn't there an automatic html to pdf converter?
Jan 27 2004
parent reply ssuukk <ssuukk .go2.pl> writes:
You should _really_ go the LaTeX (or lout - a nice LaTeX alternative ;-) )
to HTML way. Trust me (and ssuukk) - especially since LaTeX was once
developed to write a -- sorry, the computer science book *g*

Isn't there an automatic html to pdf converter?

But it will never look as good as LaTeX processed book.
Jan 28 2004
parent reply Georg Wrede <Georg_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <bv7qqq$2a5d$1 digitaldaemon.com>, ssuukk says...
Well - you can print anything into PDF (it's a windows printer driver). 
But it will never look as good as LaTeX processed book.

I once had to write a LaTeX document, on half an hour's notice. What I did was just copy the prolog and the epilog from some ready LaTeX document and then I quickly compared some source and output to learn the few tags I would use. I finished the doc on time! You could amaze people here (no names mentioned ;-) by just posting a small example html snipped from the middle of a D document, and the same snippet in LaTeX. ---- The problem with LaTeX documentation is that it absolutely drowns you. And usually you only need like a half-dozen tags.
Jan 28 2004
parent reply "Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean verizon.net> writes:
The more documentation you have, the less likely people are to actually read
it.

Thus more concise documentation is better documentation.  If you can't make
concise documentation, what you are trying to document is just too damn
complex, and should be simplified.

Sean


"Georg Wrede" <Georg_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:bv96na$1ivj$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 The problem with LaTeX documentation is that it absolutely
 drowns you. And usually you only need like a half-dozen tags.

Jan 29 2004
parent reply Georg Wrede <Georg_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <bvak9a$ttn$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Sean L. Palmer says...
The more documentation you have, the less likely people are to actually read
it.

Thus more concise documentation is better documentation.  If you can't make
concise documentation, what you are trying to document is just too damn
complex, and should be simplified.

True. The problem with LaTeX is that it has zillions of features, and the writers were diligent. But for the user who needs just a tag here and another there, it's a nightmare. We need a "Trivial Intro to LaTex for D web page writers"! :-)
"Georg Wrede" <Georg_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:bv96na$1ivj$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 The problem with LaTeX documentation is that it absolutely
 drowns you. And usually you only need like a half-dozen tags.


Jan 29 2004
parent Ilya Minkov <minkov cs.tum.edu> writes:
Georg Wrede wrote:
 True. The problem with LaTeX is that it has zillions of features,
 and the writers were diligent. But for the user who needs just a
 tag here and another there, it's a nightmare.
 
 We need a "Trivial Intro to LaTex for D web page writers"! :-)

LaTeX is very simple to work with, if you don't need any special features. Which means that you are either using a standard template, or a template made by anyone who is good in Latex - meaning that you only need to care of content. My recommandation would be O'Reillys pocket book "LaTeX kurz&gut" (in German here), if it's available in other languages. It's really tiny, 72 mini-pages. A good editor is also a lot of help. e.g.: http://www.texniccenter.org/ -eye
Jan 29 2004
prev sibling parent Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
Walter wrote:

 This is great work. The old one is getting pretty outdated. Could
 you add in the ctod.html, etc., pages too?

It is easy to have an up-to-date single html: simply cat the files together. At least IE does not complain. If you want an up-to-date pdf for reading, then install pdfcreator from http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator/ and simply print the single html from IE. Attached is a gawk-script that I use for making the single html. It has to be run with `gawk -f all.awk < toc.html > all.html'. Of course `all.awk' should be replaced by the name you choose to save the gawk- script to and the command above must be executed in the directory where the docs reside. So long. -- Fight Spam! Join EuroCAUCE: http://www.euro.cauce.org/ 2EA56D6D4DC41ABA311615946D3248A1
Jan 24 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
ssuukk wrote:

 Ah, forgot to tell. It's still a bit rough around the edges. I
 know. 

Do you mean with `rough', that the indentation is not continued, when a new page starts? Did you notice, that `\0' is wrongly converted to ` 0' or even only `0' at several places? So long. -- Fight Spam! Join EuroCAUCE: http://www.euro.cauce.org/ 2EA56D6D4DC41ABA311615946D3248A1
Jan 22 2004
parent reply ssuukk <ssuukk .go2.pl> writes:
Manfred Nowak wrote:
 Did you notice, that `\0' is wrongly converted to ` 0' or even only `0'
 at several places?

Yeah, such small things connected with LaTeX escape sequences...
 Do you mean with `rough', that the indentation is not continued, when a 
 new page starts?

Well if you find such place - tell me. But I doub't such things can happen in LaTeX.
Jan 22 2004
parent Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
ssuukk wrote:

 Do you mean with `rough', that the indentation is not continued,
 when a new page starts?

can happen in LaTeX.

You are right. A closer look told me, that your document is two-sided, i.e. well suited for printing. Therefore the indentation only seems to discontinue on a terminal. So long. -- Fight Spam! Join EuroCAUCE: http://www.euro.cauce.org/ 2EA56D6D4DC41ABA311615946D3248A1
Jan 24 2004
prev sibling parent J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:
ssuukk wrote:
 Ah, forgot to tell. It's still a bit rough around the edges. I know.

I did notice a couple very minor bugs: Page 13, Second bullet item: "between." should be "between . " "The." should be "The . " Page 14, "Productivity/Declaration vs Definition": some more period problems I suspect there are some other period issues in other parts of the document (I didn't read whole document). But, still, it looked great! (And I think it's much easier to read as a PDF than as a series of webpages.) Thanks for taking the time to do this.
 
 ssuukk wrote:
 
 Don't flame. Someone said it's binary group. Check my new pdf, and 
 give your opinions. Phobos docs will be in separate pdf...


-- Justin http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/
Jan 22 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
ssuukk wrote:

 Don't flame. Someone said it's binary group. Check my new pdf, and 
 give your opinions. Phobos docs will be in separate pdf...

Jan 22 2004
prev sibling parent reply Marcel Meyer <meyerm fs.tum.de> writes:
ssuukk wrote:

 Don't flame. Someone said it's binary group. Check my new pdf, and give
 your opinions. Phobos docs will be in separate pdf...

add on! :-) Marcel
Jan 27 2004
parent reply ssuukk <ssuukk .go2.pl> writes:
 
Don't flame. Someone said it's binary group. Check my new pdf, and give
your opinions. Phobos docs will be in separate pdf...

Could you also offer the .ps file as download? The .tex file would be a nice add on! :-)

try to generate PS, but I am not sure if my configs are right. I use PdfLaTeX, not LaTeX->DVI->DVIPS->PSPDF :-)
Jan 27 2004
parent Marcel Meyer <meyerm fs.tum.de> writes:
ssuukk wrote:

 
Don't flame. Someone said it's binary group. Check my new pdf, and give
your opinions. Phobos docs will be in separate pdf...

Could you also offer the .ps file as download? The .tex file would be a nice add on! :-)

try to generate PS, but I am not sure if my configs are right. I use PdfLaTeX, not LaTeX->DVI->DVIPS->PSPDF :-)

fonts ;-) ) Just mail the files to me. Thanks
Jan 27 2004