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

[timotheecour]

On Tuesday, 13 February 2018 at 04:16:22 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
(Abscissa) wrote:
> On 02/09/2018 07:11 AM, Kagamin wrote:
>> On Friday, 9 February 2018 at 11:16:01 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
>> (Abscissa) wrote:
>>> On 02/09/2018 05:31 AM, Kagamin wrote:
>>>> version(none)q{ FOO }; is likely to work for most stuff too.
>>>
>>> /+ +/ is likely to work for most stuff, too.
>> 
>> So do /* */
>
> Seriously, are you trying to troll? (Not rhetorical, genuinely 
> wondering.)
>
> No. No, /* */ isn't likely to work with most stuff. Not in any 
> codebase that actually USES /* */. Not without it being granted 
> nestability. And no, I'm not talking theoretically or 
> speculating here, this is speaking from years of direct 
> experience on codebases that use /* */.

here's the canonical example where `/* */` fails:

Try to comment that with `/* */`:
```
void drawCircle(int angle /* in degrees */);
```