all these workarounds are rather ugly; the proposed syntax works all the time (user can just pick a EOC token not in comment) and is analog to existing D heredoc strings, so nothing surprising there. Would PR's be accepted?
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 5:01 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]> wrote: > On Saturday, February 10, 2018 15:03:08 Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d > wrote: >> On 2/8/2018 7:06 PM, Timothee Cour wrote: >> > /"EOC >> > This is a multi-line >> > heredoc comment allowing >> > /+ documented unittests containing nesting comments +/ >> > and weird urls like https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/faq.html >> > EOS"/ >> >> There isn't any commenting scheme that won't trip you up with certain >> characters in the comments. I don't see a compelling case for adding >> another kind of comment. >> >> Vladimir's suggestion to use %2B instead of + seems to resolve this >> adequately. > > You could also always just declare a DDOC macro. > > Just put > > Macros: > PLUS=+ > > in the ddoc comment and then use $(PLUS) instead of +. It's more verbose > that way given that PLUS isn't one of the standard ddoc macros, but it's > more idiomatic to look at. > > - Jonathan M Davis >
