On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Graydon Hoare <[email protected]> wrote: > On 13-05-01 02:47 PM, Daniel Micay wrote: >> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:44 PM, John Clements <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> On May 1, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Graydon Hoare wrote: >>> >>>> On 13-05-01 10:32 AM, Lucian Branescu wrote: >>>>> Is it too late/undesirable to have an explicit, separate syntax for >>>>> docstrings, a bit like Lisps/Python? >>>> >>>> We have one: #[doc="..."] >>>> >>>> Doc comments are an alternative syntax for the same attribute because >>>> nobody liked that. >>> >>> I would have, but... c'est la vie. >>> >>> John >> >> The attribute syntax would get ugly pretty quickly for multi-line >> docstrings (which is hopefully eventually most, when they have >> examples). > > Sorry, I didn't mean to say the attribute syntax looked very good for > docs; clearly it didn't. I just ... don't know what else we're looking > for here. Yet another attribute syntax, or a still-special-case > docs-only syntax that's specifically _not_ comment-like? > > -Graydon >
I'm voicing my support for the nice docstring comments :). I'd be all for only having // comments and /// docstrings though, but I have a feeling a lot of people would strongly disagree. _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
