Compile-time Argument Lists - Wordmithing, Grammar, and Makefiles

[JinShil]

This is a followup to #986 specifically to @andralex's request

The purpose of this pull request is simply to fix some minor grammar issues and wordsmithing. There is currently a discussion taking place on the forum and a Phobos pull request which may result in different terminology, but I don't think they should prevent this PR from being pulled. Rather a separate PR should be created when that discussion reaches a conclusion.

While creating this pull request I also found that the ctarguments.dd/html file was not added to the makefiles, so I modified win32.mak and posix.mak. I don't understand the structure of those makefiles, so if it is not correct, please advise me and I will make the necessary changes. These changes should also make it easier to review as the ctarguments.html file should show up in the documentation auto-tester.

I also had to do some tabbing to make it easier to understand the DDoc markup. View these changes without whitespace

[JinShil]

I'm not sure if this belongs in the "D Reference", the language specification, and/or the "Books and Articles" section. Please advise.

[aG0aep6G]

I'm not sure if this belongs in the "D Reference", the language specification, and/or the "Books and Articles" section. Please advise.

This is supposed to replace tuple.html, so it should go in the same places. That is, "Books & Articles" in the menu, PAGES_ROOT in posix.mak, and SRC in win32.mak.

[DmitryOlshansky]

It's AliasSeq now so Arguments -> AliasSeq.

[JinShil]

This is supposed to replace tuple.html, so it should go in the same places.

Done

It's AliasSeq now so Arguments -> AliasSeq.

Done

[DmitryOlshansky]

Great. The text keeps calling them lists though.

[JinShil]

Great. The text keeps calling them lists though.

That's because "list" is the appropriate word for what's being discussed here. IMO the code should be changed to AliasList, but I didn't sign up for the naming controversy. As I said in my initial comment, I'd prefer this PR be merged based on the grammar and makefile edits, and leave the naming controversy for another pull request.

[DmitryOlshansky]

@JinShil Fair enough.

[JinShil]

Well, I naively joined the naming controversy, but couldn't elicit any cooperation. What's here is better than what's currently merged, but someone else will have to figure out how to turn AliasSeq into something intelligible. I'm washing my hands of this.

[aG0aep6G]

#1052 has some overlap with this. It's focused on getting things working, ignoring issues with the content.

[MartinNowak]

Let's get this merged and try to improve on the list problem later.