Disallow comments in special token sequences

[gdamore]

No description provided.

[Bolpat]

I’m quite sure that a DIP is not necessary for a change like this. It looks like an enhancement to me. If it was decided that it is not that it is indeed not just an enhancement and needs a DIP, I’m missing something, so please tell me.

[mdparker]

@Bolpat I brought up all of @gdamore's DIPs at our most recent monthly meeting (last Friday). Walter's going to look them over and give me a final verdict on whether they're needed or not.

[gdamore]

Status on this?

[ichordev]

Status on this?

Read this: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/README.md

[gdamore]

Should these PRs of mine then be withdrawn or closed? Having them just sit around indefinitely doesn't seem great.

[mdparker]

Sorry about the delay on this. That's my fault. I never followed up with Walter on whether this and your other proposed changes actually need DIPs. I'll check in with him this weekend.

[mdparker]

The TL;DR: Walter gave the thumbs up on all three of your DIPs, but we can't implement them just yet.

We're making some changes in our processes, and one of them is that we're going to implement language editions. Not sure yet what that will look like exactly (@atilaneves is working on a proposal). But the basic idea is that the default language should always compile old code as much as possible, while deprecations and new features get bundled into editions that users opt in to. To that end, Walter has undone some past deprecations, and we don't want to introduce any new deprecations outside of extreme circumstances.

Walter says all three of your DIPs correct mistakes in the grammar and should be implemented. But, because of the potential for breakage, they should go into an edition rather than the default language. When I know more about what editions are going to look like, I'll merge all three DIPs and mark them as Accepted for the first edition.

Thanks for submitting them!