proposal: heredoc comments to allow `+/` in comments, eg from urls or documented unittests

[Kagamin]

On Friday, 9 February 2018 at 09:48:14 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
(Abscissa) wrote:
> On 02/09/2018 04:09 AM, Kagamin wrote:
>> On Friday, 9 February 2018 at 08:54:09 UTC, Timothee Cour 
>> wrote:
>>> * `/* */` should never be used
>> Not a single reason for that
> Except of course for the ones that have been pointed out. And 
> for the reasons you yourself brought up in favor of 
> version(none). Not a single reason aside from all of those.

If they can't be used in edge cases is not a reason to never use 
them.

>>> * properly nested `/+ +/` indeed don't cause issues
>> Disproved two times in this thread. Anyway nothing properly 
>> done causes issues.
>
> Being that the issues with /* */ are a superset of the issues 
> with /+ +/, they clearly cause fewer issues than /* */.

The OP's example shows that nested comments ignore programmer's 
intent. In the end they work when opening and closing sequences 
are gotten right, not when programmer intends them to nest. The 
difference is so infinitesimal it's difficult to formulate it, 
but difference in complexity is evident.