[0x696C6961]

So in your mind, one missing section means "no documentation"? This isn't the checkmate you think it is, you're just moving goalposts.

But to answer your question, it exists in the comments of the auto-generated build.zig.zon file

[dns_snek]

It's not just "one missing section", and we're not just talking about some fringe language feature but the build system which is probably the most complex, important, and under documented part of the language.

The official answer to complaints about missing documentation has always been "ask in Discord". Pretending that this isn't the case is just disingenuous.

> But to answer your question, it exists in the comments of the auto-generated build.zig.zon file

The comments document the file format of build.zig.zon, they don't tell you anything about how to actually use a dependency in your build system.

[kristoff_it]

I've added more explanatory comments in the new template that ships with 0.15.1, also you might be interested in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy7w_7JZYyw

[dns_snek]

Thank you! I've learned how to use it well enough for own my needs by now but I think it would be really helpful to beginners if links to this video and any other useful resources you know about were added to the "Zig Build System" page on your website.

[CRConrad]

> you're just moving goalposts.

Pretty funny, coming from someone who went from "false dichotomy" to "the false equivalency".

[0x696C6961]

Where did I accuse anyone of a false dichotomy?

[CRConrad]

> Where did I accuse anyone of a false dichotomy?

You didn't accuse anyone of it, you presented one (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44995714) and then claimed it wasn't one (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44994200).

And then you blithely went on to talk about "the false equivalency" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44996188), which nobody had been talking about. What's that, if not "moving goalposts" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44998340)?

[0x696C6961]

You seem confused, I don't think I'll be responding further.

[CRConrad]

I don't think I am "confused". What's "confused" about pointing out the error -- or hypocrisy -- in accusing someone else of "moving goalposts" when it was you who did that? (NB, BTW, it wasn't me you accused; dunno if you noticed that I'm a different person.)

And I think if you won't be responding further it's because I either confused you or, more probably, just simply made you realise you were wrong. (Or maybe you knew that all along and just brazenly projected your own goalpost-moving onto someone else, Idunno.)

But if you change your mind and do respond, I'd be grateful for an explanation of how you came to the conclusion that I "seem confused", and about what exactly.