On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 04:37:44AM +0000, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] > I'm updating my fork now and check out this merge conflict: > > <<<<<<< HEAD > * source = The [isInputRange|input range] to encode. > ======= > * source = The $(REF_ALTTEXT input range, isInputRange, > std,range,primitives) > * to _encode. > > > > > > > > b905180b1fffa78f922677ee90ed8ae9b803fc4f > > My syntax is so much prettier. (note that the stupid leading _ is > something I strip out too. Ddoc's most moronic "feature". Can we > PLEASE kill that?!?!?!!)
+1000. That misfeature has been continually plaguing us ever since it was introduced, leading to a constant endless churn of PRs sprinkling _'s everywhere just to suppress ddoc's "helpful" highlighting of stuff it shouldn't have highlighted in the first place. Extremely annoying. T -- A linguistics professor was lecturing to his class one day. "In English," he said, "A double negative forms a positive. In some languages, though, such as Russian, a double negative is still a negative. However, there is no language wherein a double positive can form a negative." A voice from the back of the room piped up, "Yeah, yeah."
