Update after feedback

- Rename the feature name
- Use `merge_next`/`merge_previous` instead of documentation in documentation
- Do not propagate tags anymore
- Clarify the interaction with the various tags (like `compile_fail`, or `text`)

Author: robinmoussu

text/0000-code-block-continuation-in-documentation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,387 @@
+- Feature Name: code-block-continuation-in-documentation
+- Start Date: 2020-04-01
+- RFC PR: [rust-lang/rfcs#0000](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/0000)
+- Rust Issue: [rust-lang/rust#0000](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/0000)
+
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+The goal is to improve the experience of displaying complex examples in the documentation.
+
+The currently proposed solution is to add `merge_next` and `merge_previous` attributes to code-block.
+
+Example:
+
+```rust
+/// This is some documentation
+///
+/// ```merge_next
+/// // A comment inside a code block
+/// let some_code = 0;
+/// ```
+///
+/// A line rendered as *regular documentation*
+///
+/// ```merge_previous
+/// /// We can use variable declared in the first code-block
+/// let other_code = some_code;
+/// ```
+```
+
+… would be rendered as:
+
+`<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<`
+
+This is some documentation
+
+```rust
+// A comment inside a code block
+let some_code = 0;
+```
+
+A line rendered as *regular documentation*
+
+```rust
+/// We can use variable declared in the first code-block
+let other_code = some_code;
+```
+
+`>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>`
+
+When running `cargo test`, and if the documentation generates a link to the playground, or a `run me` button, two snippets would be generated.
+
+The first contains only the code of the first one.
+
+```rust
+// A comment inside a code block
+let some_code = 0;
+```
+
+The second will contains the aggregate of both.
+
+```rust
+// A comment inside a code block
+let some_code = 0;
+/// We can use variable declared in the first code-block
+let other_code = some_code;
+```
+
+# Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+Currently, `cargo doc` generates a really nice documentation. However, if you have a complicated setup to explain, it can be quite difficult to express examples in a concise and maintainable way.
+
+For example if you are working on a graph library, even a small example requires to create a graph. If you are documenting a function that have multiple use-cases it can become quickly an issue. Let's take a concrete example.
+
+```rust
+fn dijkstra(
+    graph: &Graph,
+    start: Graph::Node,
+    exit_condition: &dyn Fn(Graph::Node, Cost) -> bool
+    edge_cost: &dyn Fn(Graph::Node) -> Cost
+) -> Hashmap<Graph::Node, Cost>;
+```
+
+The user can change the behavior of the function in many ways. As a library writer, we would like to give examples of the major use-cases. Each of those examples will need to instantiate a graph. Since the dijkstra function doesn't modify the graph, and since if the content isn't related to the examples themselves, we may want to share the set-up between all the example.
+
+The rendered documentation we may want to create could look like this:
+
+`<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<`
+
+Function
+
+```rust
+fn dijkstra(
+    graph: &Graph,
+    start: Graph::Node,
+    exit_condition: &dyn Fn(Graph::Node, Cost) -> bool
+    edge_cost: &dyn Fn(Graph::Node) -> Cost
+) -> Hashmap<Graph::Node, Cost>;
+```
+
+---
+
+# Examples
+
+## Set-up
+
+```rust
+use Graph;
+use dijkstra;
+use std::collections::HashMap;
+
+let mut graph = Graph::new();
+let a = graph.add_node();
+let b = graph.add_node();
+let c = graph.add_node();
+
+// z will be in another connected component
+let z = graph.add_node();
+
+graph.extend_with_edges(&[
+    (a, b),
+    (b, c),
+    (c, d),
+    (d, a),
+]);
+
+// a ----> b           z (not connected)
+// ^       |
+// |       v
+// d <---- c
+```
+
+## Basic usage
+
+Compute the distances to all nodes in the graph from `a`.
+
+```rust
+let distances = dijkstra(
+    graph,
+    a,
+    &|_node, _total_distance| -> false,
+    &|_edge| -> 1,
+);
+```
+
+## Early stopping
+
+Stops the algorithm if a given number of nodes have been reached.
+
+```rust
+let distances = dijkstra(
+    graph,
+    a,
+    &|_node, total_distance| -> total_distance > 3,
+    &|_edge| -> 1,
+);
+```
+
+… (more examples)
+
+
+`>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>`
+
+As you can see, and even if the setup is quite trivial, it takes quite a lot of lines to write. And even if is trivial, it is required for each examples to compile.
+
+So how can we currently create such kind of documentation?
+
+- we can duplicate the set-up for each code-block, and add a `#` before each line
+- use a macro (declared in #[cfg(test)] mod tests { } modules in the sources, and prefixed by `#` in the documentation) at the beginning of each code-block to remove the duplication
+- use a single code-block, and use comments inside the block
+
+All of those options are far from optimal.
+
+- Duplicating the set-up code means more maintenance.
+- Creating a macro for such a trivial task seems strange (and the content of the macro would still need to be duplicated in the set-up part of the documentation).
+- By having a single code-block, the documentation (especially the titles) will not be rendered nicely (as a comment instead of markdown).
+
+Having a way to way to render documentation inside code-block inside documentation solves this dilemma.
+
+# Guide-level explanation
+[guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation
+
+When documenting a complex code-block, you can merge multiple block by adding `merge_next` to the first parts, and `merge_previous` to the next one. It can be done multiple time (to split a code-block in 3 or more parts). In between those code-block, any regular items can be used, including other code-blocks.
+
+As shown in the summary, this example demonstrate how this feature can be used.
+
+```rust
+/// This is some documentation
+///
+/// ```merge_next
+/// // A comment inside a code block
+/// let some_code = 0;
+/// ```
+///
+/// A line rendered as *regular documentation*
+///
+/// ```merge_previous
+/// /// We can use variable declared in the first code-block
+/// let other_code = some_code;
+/// ```
+```
+
+You can use this feature to add some high level explanations in the middle of an code block. If you are familiar with [jupyter notebook](https://jupyter.org/) ([link to the rust kernel](https://github.com/google/evcxr/tree/master/evcxr_jupyter)), it is similar to use markdown block in between your executable code. They provide an easy way to have a nicely rendered multi-part explanation.
+
+---
+
+Both `merge_next` and `merge_previous` implies `rust`. As such they are imcompatible with tags like `text`. The tag `rust` can be used explicitely but isn't required.
+
+---
+
+Each code-block with a `merge_next` tag must have another `merge_previous` block before the end of the current documentation block, and vice versa.
+
+You can't write …
+
+```rust
+/// ```merge_next
+/// let some_statement = 0;
+/// ```
+/// No `merge_next` block will follow
+fn foo();
+```
+
+… nor …
+
+```rust
+/// No `merge_previous` block before this one
+/// ```merge_previous
+/// let some_statement = 0;
+/// ```
+fn foo();
+```
+
+---
+
+All code-blocks are independents, and therefore can have different tags (like `compile_fail` or `ignore`). This also means that a tag may need to be repeated multiple times (like `edition`).
+
+```rust
+/// ```merge_next,compile_fail
+/// match "some_string" {
+///     "some_string" => "true",
+/// ```
+///
+/// The statement is split between two code-blocks. The first one will fail to
+/// compile (but shouldn't be considered an error), so a `compile_fail` tag is
+/// needed.
+///
+/// The expected use-case for this construction is gives some explanations in
+/// the middle of a complex statement.
+///
+/// ```merge_previous
+///     _ => "impossible",
+/// ```
+/// The second code-block doesn't need `compile_fail` since it will contains the
+/// aggregate of both parts, and thus will generates a valid snippet.
+```
+
+---
+
+Code block can be split in more than two parts.
+
+```rust
+/// ```merge_next
+/// let part_0 = 0;
+/// ```
+/// A first line of documentation…
+/// ```merge_previous,merge_next
+/// let part_1 = part_0;
+/// ```merge_previous
+/// … and a second
+/// let part_2a = part_0;
+/// let part_2b = part_1;
+/// ```
+```
+
+---
+
+It is possible to have complex use case, like displaying other code-blocks (even
+rust code even it shouldn't be recommended).
+
+```rust
+/// The following code-block is the first of a 3 part snippet.
+///
+/// ```merge_next
+/// // A comment inside a code block
+/// let from_first_block = 0;
+/// ```
+///
+/// You can use any kind of documentation, like another code-block.
+///
+/// ```text
+/// Some verbatim text
+/// ```
+///
+/// The next code-block is the second part of the snippet. It need both to
+/// explicitely be merged to the previous and the next one.
+///
+/// ```merge_previous,merge_next
+/// /// We can use variable declared in the first code-block
+/// let from_second_block = from_first_block;
+/// ```
+///
+/// It is even possible to use regular rust code-block in between a multi-parts
+/// snippet.
+///
+/// ```rust
+/// let some_unrelated_rust_code = 1;
+/// // You can't use `from_first_block` or `from_second_block` here.
+/// ```
+///
+/// And finally the last part.
+///
+/// ```merge_previous
+/// /// We can use variable declared in the first or second code-block
+/// let in_third_block_a = from_first_block;
+/// let in_third_block_b = from_second_block;
+/// ```
+///
+/// The following multi-parts snippet isn't merged with the previous
+///
+/// ```merge_next
+/// let in_part_4 = 0
+/// // You can't use any of `from_first_block`, `from_second_block`,
+/// // `in_third_block_a` and `in_third_block_b` here.
+/// ```
+///
+/// And finally a last snippet
+///
+/// ```merge_previous
+/// let in_part_5 = in_part_5;
+/// ```
+```
+
+# Reference-level explanation
+[reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation
+
+The currently proposed solution is to add `merge_next` and `merge_previous` attributes to code-block.
+
+A explained above, the following parts will have to be modified.
+
+- When running `cargo test`, and if the documentation engine. generates a link to the playground, or a `run me` button, one snippet will be generated by code-block (like usual), but each subsequent snippet will also contains the previous ones.
+- When running `cargo doc` (or similar tools), the generated html should be displayed using the normal markdown engine, as if the code-blocks had the `rust` attributes.
+
+# Drawbacks
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+It make things more complicated to parse, as explained in the section above.
+
+# Rationale and alternatives
+[rationale-and-alternatives]: #rationale-and-alternatives
+
+Here is a list of possible alternative:
+
+- Have a closing tag, instead of and opening tags to merge multiple code-blocks
+
+```rust
+/// ```
+/// let some_code = 0;
+/// ```pause
+/// Some documentation
+/// ```continue
+/// let other_code = some_code;
+/// ```
+```
+
+It is more natural, but may need more modifications in the parser itself. It would also make it non standard (see example 15 of the commonmark [documentation](https://spec.commonmark.org/0.28/#fenced-code-blocks)).
+
+- Display unit tests in the documentation (possibly with an attribute to be able to opt-in).
+
+I think both approach can be implemented, and they complement each other.
+
+# Prior art
+[prior-art]: #prior-art
+
+This proposition allow to document your code a bit like what you would do with a [jupyter notebook](https://jupyter.org/) ([link to the rust kernel](https://github.com/google/evcxr/tree/master/evcxr_jupyter)). I personally think that jupyter are a nice way to illustrate how your code should be used. As far as I understand it enables [literate programming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literate_programming).
+
+# Unresolved questions
+[unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions
+
+None for the moment.
+
+# Future possibilities
+[future-possibilities]: #future-possibilities
+
+- As explained above, and in addition/instead of the current proposition, I think it should be possible to render unit-tests (probably behind a `expand` button) in the documentation.
+
+- If we ever support testing more languages than just `rust` (like a snippet in `C`), then `merge_next`/`merge_previous` should become compatible with more than just `rust`, and extend to any supported languages.