Inline code in the docs - the correct way

[H. S. Teoh]

On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 04:37:44AM +0000, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
> I'm updating my fork now and check out this merge conflict:
> 
> <<<<<<< HEAD
>      *  source = The [isInputRange|input range] to encode.
> =======
>      *  source = The $(REF_ALTTEXT input range, isInputRange,
> std,range,primitives)
>      *           to _encode.
> > > > > > > > b905180b1fffa78f922677ee90ed8ae9b803fc4f
> 
> My syntax is so much prettier. (note that the stupid leading _ is
> something I strip out too. Ddoc's most moronic "feature". Can we
> PLEASE kill that?!?!?!!)

+1000. That misfeature has been continually plaguing us ever since it
was introduced, leading to a constant endless churn of PRs sprinkling
_'s everywhere just to suppress ddoc's "helpful" highlighting of stuff
it shouldn't have highlighted in the first place. Extremely annoying.


T

-- 
A linguistics professor was lecturing to his class one day. "In
English," he said, "A double negative forms a positive. In some
languages, though, such as Russian, a double negative is still a
negative. However, there is no language wherein a double positive can
form a negative."
A voice from the back of the room piped up, "Yeah, yeah."