Beta release DUB 1.0.0-beta.1

[Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 6/8/16 8:21 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2016-06-08 11:15, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>
>> I generally really do appreciate your critique, but without backing
>> reasons it doesn't really have a constructive effect.
>>
>> Two good properties about restricting to /+ +/ is that it's still
>> possible to put something else in front of it, and that it stands out
>> from the usual /* */ comments. Sure arguments can be made for supporting
>> all comment types, but it shouldn't be forgotten that in the end this is
>> a question of absolutely minimal impact.
>>
>> Just to be clear: If anyone has a good argument for supporting more/all
>> comment types and there are no equally good arguments against it, please
>> go ahead and implement it and it will be included. Let's just make this
>> a quick decision, because changing it later on will mean breakage no
>> matter how it's done.
>
> It's just that since the language support other styles of comments one
> could think that all comments are supported and it will cause confusion
> if only one style is supported. Otherwise it might be better to use a
> UDA, if possible.
>
> If one reads the documentation and copy pastes and example the user will
> most likely get it right. But if you have a conversation saying
> something like "it's possible to put the content of dub.json inline in
> the source code, just put it in a comment" then someone will for sure
> try using a comment style that is not supported.
>
> The documentation needs to be very clear that only one type comments are
> supported, if that's the conclusion.
>

I agree with Jacob. A comment is a comment. There is no reason one needs 
to use specifically /+. In fact the only reason for the existence of /+ 
is to allow nesting of comments -- which doesn't apply here. I'd say you 
should support // comments as well.

There's another aspect here, in that most people (even core D 
developers) use the /* comment style */. So someone seeing the /+ 
comment might think this is a specialized dub thing.

I will finally say this: if such an implementation update existed, what 
would be the reason NOT to pull it? That is, I think literally the only 
reason not to support /* for this purpose is that nobody has done the 
work. If you can give no better reason, it should take away any barriers 
for anyone wishing to create this improvement.

-Steve