Use the following to include your README in your `doctest`s (so that your examples in your README are also executed).
#[doc = include_str!("../README.md")]
pub struct ReadmeDoctests;
@josias Oh, thanks, I didn't know that.
I use the multi-line form in this case, because VS Code with rust-analyzer doesn't autocomplete the comment marker (//!) when inserting a new line.🙄
With struct-method-level comments (///) it works (I think?), so in this case I use single-line comments, just not for //!
(maybe I should create an issue? )
BurntSushi also does multi-line comments with //!, so can it be wrong?😄
See here: https://github.com/BurntSushi/rust-csv/blob/master/src/lib.rs
@janriemer They both exist, so it makes sense to use the right one for the right situation. I just thought I read somewhere that single-line comments were preferred. I can't find anything authoritative on it. I think it's just a convention.
@josias Yes, you are probably right that they are prefered, because I've seen them in many other popular crates as well.👍
I wonder, what's the reason behind it, though.🤨
IMO, multi-line-comments are far easier to write than single-line-comments, when you have an essay of text - I mean, it is literally in the name ("multi-line").
@janriemer I know Zig doesn't have multi-line comments because they want the language to have context-free grammar. You can also tell if a section is commented or not based on the beginning of the line instead of having to find the opening and closing comment indicators. (which of course isn't a big deal when you use syntax highlighting)
@josias Oh, interesting that Zig doesn't have them.
Yes, regarding recognizability of comments, single-line comments are probably better, especially for visually impaired people, where syntax highlighting won't help.
Sorry for the late reply, I forgot to respond here.😊
This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!