__traits(comment) redux what if opt in?

[Avrina]

On Saturday, 30 May 2020 at 23:04:42 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> I still very much want access to ddoc from reflection. In the 
> past, these proposals have been shot down out of fears of 
> comments affecting code.
>
> Well, what if it was ONLY available on the declaration itself?
>
> __traits(comment) takes no arguments and returns a string with 
> the contents of the attached documentation comment of the 
> current declaration. It may return null if not compiling with 
> -D (though I think it should be available regardless, I'm open 
> to compromise).
>
> If the function wants to make this available to outside code, 
> it can use it in a UDA:
>
> struct doc {
>   string text;
> }
>
> /++ comment here +/
> @doc(__traits(comment))
> void foo() {}
>
> assert(__traits(getAttributes, foo) == AliasSeq!(doc("/++ 
> comment here +/")));
>
>
> Would this be more amenable to people against this in the past? 
> Since it is tightly scoped and opt in, there'd be very little 
> room for abuse - it just basically copy/pastes the string to a 
> UDA for you to reuse existing language mechanisms.

There's only one person's opinion that really matters. If you 
want this feature in, then write a DIP for it.

This is a pointless restriction, you can still access the string 
by grabbing the UDA from basically anywhere. It just makes it 
more obfuscated what is happening.