[feature request] Support python-like docstrings about starlark-go HOT 5 CLOSED

The change is probably trivial and I can probably do it myself, I just want to know if this is acceptable.

from starlark-go.

Sounds fine. The only downside is that this will bloat the serialized bytecode files, since the comments can easily double the size of the compiled program. But it should be an easy change---send me a patch and I will measure whether it has performance implications on a large benchmark I can't easily share.

(The presented "alternative" won't work because syntax is not available during execution.)

from starlark-go.

Question on this: since this got merged should the grammar.txt file be updated to reflect that an optional docstring is now supported within a Suite?

from starlark-go.

Question on this: since this got merged should the grammar.txt file be updated to reflect that an optional docstring is now supported within a Suite?

There is no change to the grammar. A string literal is an expression, and any expression is a valid statement. All that has changed is the representation of function values whose first statement is a string literal.

from starlark-go.

@alandonovan - thx for clarifying.

from starlark-go.