[WORK] Backtick dat code?

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d]

On 16/01/15 21:58, Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 16 January 2015 at 20:50:22 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Now that Adam's work on transforming `code` into $(D code) is in, who'd want
>> to write the glorious sed --in-place expression that transforms Phobos? Or
>> should we just leave it for future code and occasional refactoring? -- Andrei
>
> Does it support things like: `log n$(SUBSCRIPT c)` ?

Great to hear that Adam's feature landed :-)

Along similar lines, it would be really nice if there were some way in Ddoc of 
indicating, "This next bit of ddoc contains no macros nor any Ddoc special 
characters and should be taken literally as is."

I don't know if this fits with the design, but suppose that ``something`` were 
to be taken as "something should be interpreted literally as-is".  So then,
```this_bit_of_code() { ... }``` would be interpreted as code that internally 
contains no Ddoc macros or special characters, while ``this would be 
literally-interpreted text`` and `this_code() { $(B can_contain;) ddoc_macros; }`.