On Wednesday, January 17, 2018 11:52:40 Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 1/16/18 10:59 PM, ketmar wrote: > > Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > >> I shudder at the thought of compiled code being affected by > >> documentation. > >> > >> I don't like it, sorry. > > > > it's not really different from `version(DDoc)`, or string mixins, or > > UDAs. i can put documentation in UDA, and process code differently when > > UDA changes. yes, UDA is not a comment -- but it doesn't affect code > > generation directly too. there is just no way to stop people from > > writing abominations once we got metaprogramming. and adding artificial > > limitations on that just makes people more inventive, but won't stop > > infestation. ;-) > > version(DDoc) is very different. It's a command line option passed to > the build, and affecting the build with command line options is expected. > > This proposal has comment *contents* affecting the build. The charter of > comments is to NOT affect code, ever. They can be used to affect other > systems, such as the ddoc generator, ide hints, etc., but you can be > sure (?) that comments won't change code. > > I think this is an important line not to cross. > > One of the features promoted in this is to have the documentation be > used for command-line help. I think it would be better to allow ddoc > generation be affected by code rather than the other way around in this > regard.
+1 - Jonathan M Davis
