www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - drop html docs from the dmd distribution?

reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
They seem rather pointless, considering:

1. them being on the web is better anyway
2. the new pdf version of the spec
Feb 03 2013
next sibling parent Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
On 2/4/13, Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:
 They seem rather pointless, considering:

 1. them being on the web is better anyway
 2. the new pdf version of the spec

They're used for CHM generation.
Feb 03 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply FG <home fgda.pl> writes:
On 2013-02-04 00:58, Walter Bright wrote:
 They seem rather pointless, considering:

 1. them being on the web is better anyway
 2. the new pdf version of the spec

Theoretically: It's useful, because the docs' version matches the compiler, while the website only lists current documentation. Practically: I'm quite sure few people read those offline html docs.
Feb 03 2013
parent "Nathan M. Swan" <nathanmswan gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 4 February 2013 at 00:26:06 UTC, FG wrote:
 On 2013-02-04 00:58, Walter Bright wrote:
 They seem rather pointless, considering:

 1. them being on the web is better anyway
 2. the new pdf version of the spec

Theoretically: It's useful, because the docs' version matches the compiler, while the website only lists current documentation. Practically: I'm quite sure few people read those offline html docs.

I do, when I have no internet access. NMS
Feb 03 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 15:58:35 -0800
Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:
 drop html docs from the dmd distribution?

PLEASE NO.
 They seem rather pointless, considering:
 
 1. them being on the web is better anyway

Not when you don't have internet access or when you need docs an older version.
 2. the new pdf version of the spec

PDF is complete shit for on-screen browsing, or for anything other than printing for that matter. HTML is good for on-screen browsing.
Feb 03 2013
next sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 20:53:32 -0500, Nick Sabalausky  
<SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:

 On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 15:58:35 -0800
 Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:
 drop html docs from the dmd distribution?

PLEASE NO.
 They seem rather pointless, considering:

 1. them being on the web is better anyway

Not when you don't have internet access or when you need docs an older version.

+1 -Steve
Feb 03 2013
prev sibling parent reply Dejan Lekic <dejan.lekic gmail.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 15:58:35 -0800
 Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:
 drop html docs from the dmd distribution?

PLEASE NO.
 They seem rather pointless, considering:
 
 1. them being on the web is better anyway

Not when you don't have internet access or when you need docs an older version.
 2. the new pdf version of the spec

PDF is complete shit for on-screen browsing, or for anything other than printing for that matter. HTML is good for on-screen browsing.

+1 PDF, ePUB, Kindle - all suffer from this problem. -- Dejan Lekic dejan.lekic (a) gmail.com http://dejan.lekic.org
Feb 04 2013
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 2/4/13 2:08 PM, Dejan Lekic wrote:
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 15:58:35 -0800
 Walter Bright<newshound2 digitalmars.com>  wrote:
 drop html docs from the dmd distribution?

PLEASE NO.
 They seem rather pointless, considering:

 1. them being on the web is better anyway

Not when you don't have internet access or when you need docs an older version.
 2. the new pdf version of the spec

PDF is complete shit for on-screen browsing, or for anything other than printing for that matter. HTML is good for on-screen browsing.

+1 PDF, ePUB, Kindle - all suffer from this problem.

I wonder whether a big, continuous HTML would be a good possibility. Andrei
Feb 04 2013
parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2013-02-04 23:29, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 I wonder whether a big, continuous HTML would be a good possibility.

I would rather like to have a first page which list all symbols with a filter, just like the Ruby docs: http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-1.9.3/ -- /Jacob Carlborg
Feb 04 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Kiith-Sa" <kiithsacmp gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 3 February 2013 at 23:58:39 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 They seem rather pointless, considering:

 1. them being on the web is better anyway
 2. the new pdf version of the spec

I use the included HTML docs when I have no internet access (e.g. in train, which is 2hr/day for me).
Feb 03 2013
prev sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 2/3/2013 3:58 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 They seem rather pointless, considering:

 1. them being on the web is better anyway
 2. the new pdf version of the spec

Ok, everyone, you made your point! They stay.
Feb 03 2013