On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 06:27:30PM -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 12/31/14 12:30 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote: > >On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 11:50:51AM -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu via > >Digitalmars-d wrote: > >The problem with using only a single escape character is that it's > >ambiguous when nested. If you write `X`Y`Z`, should it be interpreted > >as $(X $(Y)) or $(X)Y$(Z)? > > That issue is fairly obvious, as is its solution - backticks (or > whichever escape) don't nest; for nesting use the full syntax. Just > like bash/zsh.
So there will be two syntaxes for the same thing in the non-nested case then? > >Also, the people complaining about $(MACRO ...)) syntax aren't > >complaining about the $(...) part specifically, but about the MACRO > >part. No matter how you try to prettify it, $(MACRO x y z) is still > >`MACRO x y z`. As long as you have a single syntax for all macros, > >the syntax people won't be happy. What they are clamoring for is > >dedicated syntax for the most common macros, so that they don't have > >to keep repeating the MACRO part of the invocation. > > That's a bit of a bummer because that seems a slippery slope to me. > But I guess we could standardize on markdown syntax. Unfortunately it seems Walter is against it. But on a deeper note, perhaps the issue isn't really ddoc syntax per se, but the fact that doc comments can *only* be processed by ddoc. If there was a way to get the raw text out, the people who dislike ddoc can pipe it to the formatter of their own choice, and they would be happy. People who are indifferent will get ddoc by default, which, despite its flaws, isn't really *that* horrible. T -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? -- Michael Beibl
