Beta release DUB 1.0.0-beta.1

[Sönke Ludwig via Digitalmars-d-announce]

Am 09.06.2016 um 15:06 schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
> On 6/8/16 2:45 PM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
 > (...)
>> Apart from what I've already mentioned in my first reply to Jacob, I
>> think there is nothing else that couldn't be solved in either case.
>
> "It's still possible to put something else in front of it"
>
> I didn't get this. How is /+ different from /*? I thought the only issue
> was the nesting.

I mean together with the restriction that it has to be the first /+ +/ 
comment, it is possible to put // and /* style comments in front of it 
without interference.

>> Okay, so at least 3 people favor supporting other comment styles, while
>> I'm not convinced that supporting all comment styles is necessarily
>> better, I wouldn't mind pulling an update. The relevant code section is
>> here:
>> https://github.com/dlang/dub/blob/b02c18991b0cb4627eb0c943efd6ca3e69192751/source/dub/dub.d#L288
>>
>
> Thanks. Perhaps more debate is fruitless until someone steps up with an
> implementation :)

Rory has started an implementation: https://github.com/dlang/dub/pull/872

But this has brought up another issue. The idea was to allow the recipe 
comment to be anywhere in the file and be of any comment style. However, 
that basically almost requires a full D lexer (at least string literals 
need to be parsed in addition to the comment styles).

I'm reluctant to include this in the current state, because the results 
for a program such as the following will be very confusing:

	bool foo(string str)
	{
		return str.startsWith("/*");
	}

	/* dub.sdl: ... */
	void main()
	{
	}

The string literal will be recognized as the start of a comment and thus 
the real comment below will not be recognized. So I think we should 
either have a generic and correct version, or one that is restricted 
similar to the current one to sidestep such issues.

>> 1.0.0-rc.1 is scheduled for Monday morning, so it should ready by then
>> to avoid stretching the release schedule (it's technically a breaking
>> change!).
>
> How would this be a breaking change? It seems an additive feature, and
> I'm not sure it's required to be there before the first 1.0 release.

There could be a /* */ comment before the /+ dub.*: +/ one, which is now 
not considered as a recipe comment candidate. Depending on its contents, 
the behavior could change once /* */ is also recognized. However, that 
case would be easily detectable and a warning could be emitted instead, 
while falling back to the old behavior. So it's not really an issue 
after all.