www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

D - [Style Guide] Nested Comments

reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
According to the style guide nested comments should "comment out" trial 
code.

But current the compiler does not support this style well. This is 
because the lexical analysis treats comments on a "first come first 
serve" base. I.e. "/+" and "+/" can be included with no harm in "//" 
and "/*" comments as well as in strings.

Then, when commenting out this trial code, the included nested "/+" and 
"+/" suddenly come to life, forcing the need to include several "/+" at 
the begin of the trial code or several "+/" at the end of the trial 
code in order to have the block of code properly have commented out.

Example:
<code>
/+/+/+

  /*
   * comment "+/" ...
   *
   */

  statement;  // comment "+/" ...   
  statement;  // comment "/+" ...
  printf(".../+...",...);

+/+/+/ 
</code>

In addition, when changing the relevant parts of the inner comments or 
strings the starts and endings of the nested comment must be changed 
accordingly.

Shouldn't the compiler neglect "/+" and "+/" in included comments and 
strings when processing nested comments?

So long.
-- 
Fight Spam! Join EuroCAUCE: http://www.euro.cauce.org/  
2EA56D6D4DC41ABA311615946D3248A1
Jan 22 2004
next sibling parent reply J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:
Manfred Nowak wrote:


 According to the style guide nested comments should "comment out" trial 
 code.
 
 But current the compiler does not support this style well. This is 
 because the lexical analysis treats comments on a "first come first 
 serve" base. I.e. "/+" and "+/" can be included with no harm in "//" 
 and "/*" comments as well as in strings.
 
 Then, when commenting out this trial code, the included nested "/+" and 
 "+/" suddenly come to life, forcing the need to include several "/+" at 
 the begin of the trial code or several "+/" at the end of the trial 
 code in order to have the block of code properly have commented out.
 
 Example:
 <code>
 /+/+/+
 
   /*
    * comment "+/" ...
    *
    */
 
   statement;  // comment "+/" ...   
   statement;  // comment "/+" ...
   printf(".../+...",...);
 
 +/+/+/ 
 </code>
 
 In addition, when changing the relevant parts of the inner comments or 
 strings the starts and endings of the nested comment must be changed 
 accordingly.
 
 Shouldn't the compiler neglect "/+" and "+/" in included comments and 
 strings when processing nested comments?
 
 So long.


I think I understand your point, but I don't view this is a 
commonly-occurring problem. I think you might be missing the purpose of 
nested comments.

Nested comments are optional.  No one will ever force you to use them. 
I've never been hindered by them. If you don't like them, you can use // 
and /* */ if they are too much trouble.

On the other hand, I consider them to be a gift. In fact, nested 
commments is one of the reasons that I'm involved in D.  They can be 
left in code permanently, but what I really like to use them for is 
temporary situations (where I want to leave code out and see what 
happens).  I guess I haven't coded anything with code like this in it:
	printf("/+");
but I guess if I did I'd just use /* */ or // to comment it out.  I 
might be annoyed for a second, but then I hope I'd just take a deep 
breath and work it out.

It seems the way it works right now, once the compiler sees a /+ it goes 
into nested commment mode. All it's looking for is either another /+ to 
take it up another level or +/ to go down towards actual code.  That's 
it.  It's easier for Walter to write the compiler that way. It's easier 
for the rest of us to write tools for that way.

(Not that I have any strong opinions on the matter...)


-- 
Justin
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/
Jan 22 2004
parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
While it was 23/1/04 4:00 am throughout the UK, J C Calvarese sprinkled 
little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:

<snip>

 I think I understand your point, but I don't view this is a 
 commonly-occurring problem. I think you might be missing the purpose of 
 nested comments.


The point, surely, is so that you can comment out any block of code 
without worrying about comment delimiters already in it.  To achieve 
this perfectly would mean continuing to check whether the comment 
delimiters are within strings or non-nesting comments in the commented 
out code.


 Nested comments are optional.  No one will ever force you to use them. 
 I've never been hindered by them. If you don't like them, you can use // 
 and /* */ if they are too much trouble.


If /+ +/ are too much trouble, then you might as well just forget /* */ 
with respect to the OP's example.


 On the other hand, I consider them to be a gift. In fact, nested 
 commments is one of the reasons that I'm involved in D.  They can be 
 left in code permanently, but what I really like to use them for is 
 temporary situations (where I want to leave code out and see what 
 happens).  I guess I haven't coded anything with code like this in it:
     printf("/+");


<snip>

I agree.  Now the question is: is TextPad going to support nested 
comments soon?

Just looking at the style guide, and the /+++++ ... +++++/ in the 
example, I suppose it could have been designed so that, if you have / 
followed by a number of +s at the beginning, you need the same number of 
+s followed by a / to end it.  Maybe this is WUTB now....

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the 
unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep 
replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Jan 23 2004
next sibling parent reply Brad Anderson <brad sankaty.dot.com> writes:
Stewart,

My textpad syntax file is old (DMD 0.65) and needs an update, but you can get
it 
here:
http://www.penguinblotter.com/d/d.syn

It supports nested comments as I see it.  Maybe you could show me an example of 
this syntax file not doing it correctly?

BA




Stewart Gordon wrote:

 While it was 23/1/04 4:00 am throughout the UK, J C Calvarese sprinkled 
 little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:
 
 <snip>
 

 I think I understand your point, but I don't view this is a 
 commonly-occurring problem. I think you might be missing the purpose 
 of nested comments.


 
 
 The point, surely, is so that you can comment out any block of code 
 without worrying about comment delimiters already in it.  To achieve 
 this perfectly would mean continuing to check whether the comment 
 delimiters are within strings or non-nesting comments in the commented 
 out code.
 

 Nested comments are optional.  No one will ever force you to use them. 
 I've never been hindered by them. If you don't like them, you can use 
 // and /* */ if they are too much trouble.


 
 
 If /+ +/ are too much trouble, then you might as well just forget /* */ 
 with respect to the OP's example.
 

 On the other hand, I consider them to be a gift. In fact, nested 
 commments is one of the reasons that I'm involved in D.  They can be 
 left in code permanently, but what I really like to use them for is 
 temporary situations (where I want to leave code out and see what 
 happens).  I guess I haven't coded anything with code like this in it:
     printf("/+");


 
 <snip>
 
 I agree.  Now the question is: is TextPad going to support nested 
 comments soon?
 
 Just looking at the style guide, and the /+++++ ... +++++/ in the 
 example, I suppose it could have been designed so that, if you have / 
 followed by a number of +s at the beginning, you need the same number of 
 +s followed by a / to end it.  Maybe this is WUTB now....
 
 Stewart.
Jan 23 2004
parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
While it was 23/1/04 3:57 pm throughout the UK, Brad Anderson sprinkled 
little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:


 Stewart,
 
 My textpad syntax file is old (DMD 0.65) and needs an update, but you 
 can get it here:
 http://www.penguinblotter.com/d/d.syn


It looks almost identical to mine, at least the Syntax section does 
apart from the exact order of the directives.


 It supports nested comments as I see it.  Maybe you could show me an 
 example of this syntax file not doing it correctly?


<snip top of upside-down reply>

At the moment I can't see any directive indicating nested comments at 
all.  But I'll take it home and try it over the weekend.  BTW what 
version of TextPad are you using?  Mine's 4.5.0, probably time to 
upgrade....

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the 
unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep 
replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Jan 23 2004
parent Brad Anderson <brad sankaty.dot.com> writes:
same - 4.5.0

in syntax:

CommentStart = /*
CommentEnd = */
CommentStartAlt = /+
CommentEndAlt = +/

maybe the order matters ...


BA



Stewart Gordon wrote:


 While it was 23/1/04 3:57 pm throughout the UK, Brad Anderson sprinkled 
 little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:
 

 Stewart,

 My textpad syntax file is old (DMD 0.65) and needs an update, but you 
 can get it here:
 http://www.penguinblotter.com/d/d.syn


 
 
 It looks almost identical to mine, at least the Syntax section does 
 apart from the exact order of the directives.
 

 It supports nested comments as I see it.  Maybe you could show me an 
 example of this syntax file not doing it correctly?


 
 <snip top of upside-down reply>
 
 At the moment I can't see any directive indicating nested comments at 
 all.  But I'll take it home and try it over the weekend.  BTW what 
 version of TextPad are you using?  Mine's 4.5.0, probably time to 
 upgrade....
 
 Stewart.
Jan 23 2004
prev sibling parent reply J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:
Stewart Gordon wrote:


 While it was 23/1/04 4:00 am throughout the UK, J C Calvarese sprinkled 
 little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:
 
 <snip>
 

 I think I understand your point, but I don't view this is a 
 commonly-occurring problem. I think you might be missing the purpose 
 of nested comments.


 
 
 The point, surely, is so that you can comment out any block of code 
 without worrying about comment delimiters already in it.  To achieve 
 this perfectly would mean continuing to check whether the comment 
 delimiters are within strings or non-nesting comments in the commented 
 out code.
 

 Nested comments are optional.  No one will ever force you to use them. 
 I've never been hindered by them. If you don't like them, you can use 
 // and /* */ if they are too much trouble.


 
 
 If /+ +/ are too much trouble, then you might as well just forget /* */ 
 with respect to the OP's example.


Then use //.
My supposition is that no matter how we design this system, someone can 
come up with an example that makes it look flawed.  So we could get in 
an endless loop of adding complexity to the compiler until no one wants 
to implement the compiler or any parsing tools.

An unimplemented compiler is an unpopular one.


 

 On the other hand, I consider them to be a gift. In fact, nested 
 commments is one of the reasons that I'm involved in D.  They can be 
 left in code permanently, but what I really like to use them for is 
 temporary situations (where I want to leave code out and see what 
 happens).  I guess I haven't coded anything with code like this in it:
     printf("/+");


 
 <snip>
 
 I agree.  Now the question is: is TextPad going to support nested 
 comments soon?


Actually, I'm not aware are any syntax editor that treats nested 
comments as nested comments instead of as block comments. (Please let 
know if you've found one.)

Currently, if I mess up the nested comments so that it doesn't run, I 
use d2html (available at my website) to see where it went wrong.

Apparently, Programmers Notepad allows the use of a parser plug-in, so 
that might be the easiest way to bring comprehensive nested comment 
support to an editor.  But it would probably still involve some effort 
and I'm pretty lazy.


 
 Just looking at the style guide, and the /+++++ ... +++++/ in the 
 example, I suppose it could have been designed so that, if you have / 
 followed by a number of +s at the beginning, you need the same number of 
 +s followed by a / to end it.  Maybe this is WUTB now....
 
 Stewart.


That's a pretty neat idea, but I'm still going to vote for the status 
quo since I'm lazy and don't want to add any complexity d2html if I 
don't have to.

-- 
Justin
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/
Jan 23 2004
next sibling parent "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:
 Stewart Gordon wrote:


 While it was 23/1/04 4:00 am throughout the UK, J C Calvarese sprinkled
 little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:




Stewart, is it possible for you to round-robin a set of "amusing" phrases,
as the lit dot sprinkles one is getting well old?

Smarmy Sid
Jan 23 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"J C Calvarese" <jcc7 cox.net> wrote in message
news:busfmc$2832$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 My supposition is that no matter how we design this system, someone can
 come up with an example that makes it look flawed.


Yes, it's like stepping on a bubble in a carpet. It flattens out under your
shoe, but pops up in another annoying location. The current semantics of /+
+/ enable it to be used to comment out arbitrary text as long as it doesn't
contain /+ or +/, not just D code.


 So we could get in
 an endless loop of adding complexity to the compiler until no one wants
 to implement the compiler or any parsing tools.


I prefer something straightforward and easy to understand, even if perhaps
that makes it suboptimal for some situations. I was once introduced via
email to someone who was described as the world's leading expert on the C
preprocessor. I don't want to create a language that opens a niche for the
creation of a world's leading expert on some aspect of it <g>.

That said, I obviously need to fix up the explanation of it in the manual a
bit.


 An unimplemented compiler is an unpopular one.


Yes.
Jan 24 2004
parent Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
Walter wrote:

[...]

 An unimplemented compiler is an unpopular one.


 Yes.


Don't get me wrong.
The message subject contains "[Style Guide]".
I wouldn't have posted it, when the style guide wouldn't contain the 
proposal of commenting out comments and strings.

Nested comments are a beautiful idea by itself.

So long.
-- 
Fight Spam! Join EuroCAUCE: http://www.euro.cauce.org/  
2EA56D6D4DC41ABA311615946D3248A1
Jan 24 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
J C Calvarese wrote:

[..] 

 Actually, I'm not aware are any syntax editor that treats nested 
 comments as nested comments instead of as block comments. (Please
 let know if you've found one.)


vim does. I am working on a syntax file for vim. But there is a bug in 
vim, so that multiple endings must be separated by spaces. Thats how I 
invented the example.

[...]

 That's a pretty neat idea, but I'm still going to vote for the
 status quo since I'm lazy and don't want to add any complexity
 d2html if I don't have to.


If d2html is properly designed, then it should be neglectible work, as 
in vim. The declaration for the nestable comment is:

| syn region  CommentSlashPlus	start="/+" end="+/"
| contains= CommentSlashPlus
 
Adding the other comments and strings would change it to

| syn region  CommentSlashPlus	start="/+" end="+/"
| contains= Comment, String

Do you really think, that this is a complex task?

So long.
-- 
Fight Spam! Join EuroCAUCE: http://www.euro.cauce.org/  
2EA56D6D4DC41ABA311615946D3248A1
Jan 24 2004
parent reply marcus <marcus_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <butv4d$1j5n$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Manfred Nowak says...

vim does. I am working on a syntax file for vim. But there is a bug in 
vim, so that multiple endings must be separated by spaces. Thats how I 
invented the example.

If d2html is properly designed, then it should be neglectible work, as 
in vim. The declaration for the nestable comment is:

| syn region  CommentSlashPlus	start="/+" end="+/"
| contains= CommentSlashPlus
 
Adding the other comments and strings would change it to

| syn region  CommentSlashPlus	start="/+" end="+/"
| contains= Comment, String

Do you really think, that this is a complex task?

So long.


I made a Vim syntax file for Lua 5 (it comes with vim 6.2), where long strings
are delimited by [[ bla bla ]] and they nest. Long comments are --[[ bla bla ]]
and they can have nested [[ bla bla ]]'s too.

Now Lua authors are thinking of making delimiters like this [***[ bla bla ]***]
(same number of *'s). Do you know if it's implementable in Vim? It's been a
somewhat long time since i read Vim docs about syntax highlighting...
Jan 24 2004
next sibling parent Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
marcus wrote:

[...]

 Now Lua authors are thinking of making delimiters like this [***[
 bla bla ]***] (same number of *'s). Do you know if it's
 implementable in Vim?


[...]

It is easy. Have a look at the docs with `:help ext-match'.

Something like:
| syn region C start="\[\z(\*\+\)\[" end="\]\z1\]" contains=C,...
should do the work.

So long.
-- 
Fight Spam! Join EuroCAUCE: http://www.euro.cauce.org/  
2EA56D6D4DC41ABA311615946D3248A1
Jan 24 2004
prev sibling parent Georg Wrede <Georg_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <buue60$2abf$1 digitaldaemon.com>, marcus says...

Now Lua authors are thinking of making delimiters like this [***[ bla bla ]***]
(same number of *'s). Do you know if it's implementable in Vim? It's been a
somewhat long time since i read Vim docs about syntax highlighting...


You could always define [*[, [**[ and [***[, etc, as separate
comment types. Of course, this wouldn't work with an arbitrary number
of stars, only what you've explicitly defined. I think it would take
much thinking to get this work for all possible numbers of stars.
Jan 25 2004
prev sibling parent Ilya Minkov <minkov cs.tum.edu> writes:
J C Calvarese wrote:


 On the other hand, I consider them to be a gift. In fact, nested 
 commments is one of the reasons that I'm involved in D.  They can be 
 left in code permanently, but what I really like to use them for is 
 temporary situations (where I want to leave code out and see what 
 happens).  I guess I haven't coded anything with code like this in it:
     printf("/+");






I find the situation stupid. I think it has to be classified as a bug. 
With */, strings and line comments are also left out, so they should 
with +/.


 I agree.  Now the question is: is TextPad going to support nested 
 comments soon?


 
 
 Actually, I'm not aware are any syntax editor that treats nested 
 comments as nested comments instead of as block comments. (Please let 
 know if you've found one.)


If i recall correctly, in CREdit, when entering a syntax definition, you 
may specify that a comment be a nesting comment.

Generally, i don't believe that multi-language editors don't support 
nesting comments, since Borland Pascal's neat {} comments nest.


 Currently, if I mess up the nested comments so that it doesn't run, I 
 use d2html (available at my website) to see where it went wrong.
 
 Apparently, Programmers Notepad allows the use of a parser plug-in, so 
 that might be the easiest way to bring comprehensive nested comment 
 support to an editor.  But it would probably still involve some effort 
 and I'm pretty lazy.


Hmmm... Maybe it's time to extend SciTE lexer. ;)


 Just looking at the style guide, and the /+++++ ... +++++/ in the 
 example, I suppose it could have been designed so that, if you have / 
 followed by a number of +s at the beginning, you need the same number 
 of +s followed by a / to end it.  Maybe this is WUTB now....




NO WAY!  The excess +s are an artistic mean to give value to comments 
and have to simply be ignored! ;)

-eye
Jan 24 2004
prev sibling parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Manfred Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bupvr8$14eo$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Shouldn't the compiler neglect "/+" and "+/" in included comments and
 strings when processing nested comments?


The behavior works as intended, although the manual could say it better.
Jan 24 2004
next sibling parent Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
Walter schrieb:


 Shouldn't the compiler neglect "/+" and "+/" in included comments
 and strings when processing nested comments?


 The behavior works as intended, although the manual could say it
 better. 


Of course, that was only a proposal.

So long.
-- 
Fight Spam! Join EuroCAUCE: http://www.euro.cauce.org/  
2EA56D6D4DC41ABA311615946D3248A1
Jan 24 2004
prev sibling parent reply Ilya Minkov <minkov cs.tum.edu> writes:
Walter wrote:

 "Manfred Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com> wrote in message
 news:bupvr8$14eo$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 

Shouldn't the compiler neglect "/+" and "+/" in included comments and
strings when processing nested comments?


 
 The behavior works as intended, although the manual could say it better.


It's counterintuitive. In all other languages all comment tokens within 
comments and strings are ignored, including /* */ in C.
Jan 24 2004
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Ilya Minkov" <minkov cs.tum.edu> wrote in message
news:buu141$1lr4$2 digitaldaemon.com...

 Walter wrote:

 "Manfred Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com> wrote in message
 news:bupvr8$14eo$1 digitaldaemon.com...


Shouldn't the compiler neglect "/+" and "+/" in included comments and
strings when processing nested comments?


 The behavior works as intended, although the manual could say it better.


 It's counterintuitive. In all other languages all comment tokens within
 comments and strings are ignored, including /* */ in C.


That's not correct for C.
Jan 25 2004
parent reply "Carlos Santander B." <carlos8294 msn.com> writes:
"J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> wrote in message
news:bv17ej$eim$1 digitaldaemon.com...
| Yeah, C doesn't even have /* */.
|
| --
| -Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

Wrong there: /* */ is the only way to comment C code.

-----------------------
Carlos Santander Bernal
Jan 25 2004
next sibling parent reply J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:
Carlos Santander B. wrote:

 "J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> wrote in message
 news:bv17ej$eim$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 | Yeah, C doesn't even have /* */.
 |
 | --
 | -Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
 
 Wrong there: /* */ is the only way to comment C code.
 
 -----------------------
 Carlos Santander Bernal


I sure hope a person doesn't to be an expert in C, C++, Java, and all 
varieties of Pascal (ANSI, Turbo, & Delphi) in order to discuss things 
around here.

I was thinking that /* */ and // were fair game for commenting in C, 
C++, and Java. I guess not. (Maybe it depends on how compliant the 
compiler is.)

I didn't realize until it was brought up the other day that Turbo Pascal 
allows { } to be nested. (ANSI Pascal apparently doesn't, but who 
follows that standard anyway?)

I personally like the way commenting occurs in D. I'm not aware of 
another language that is so flexible that there are three distinct types 
of commenting. And with all of the contract-by-design goodies we 
shouldn't need as many comments, right?

I learned how fancy comments worked in D from playing around with the 
compiler, and made up some examples of how it works in some more 
complicated cases (http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/tutor/).

-- 
Justin
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/
Jan 25 2004
parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
J C Calvarese schrieb:

[...]

 I learned how fancy comments worked in D from playing around with
 the compiler, and made up some examples of how it works in some
 more complicated cases (http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/tutor/).


However, your example comments in the comments-part are wrong. /*- and 
//-comments do not nest, they are broken.

So long.
Jan 26 2004
parent reply J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:
Manfred Nowak wrote:

 J C Calvarese schrieb:
 [...]

more complicated cases (http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/tutor/).


 
 
 However, your example comments in the comments-part are wrong. /*- and 
 //-comments do not nest, they are broken.


You're right. My example was misleading. Since you brought this to my 
attention, I tried to make it more clear.

I think this might be something that is difficult to teach, so hopefully 
people can make use of my example as a place to start until I can figure 
out how to explain it better.


 
 So long.



-- 
Justin
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/
Jan 28 2004
parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
J C Calvarese wrote:

[...]

 I think this might be something that is difficult to teach


[...]

Because it is said, that it is easy to implement, it should be also be 
easy to teach: do not mix the different sorts of comments, hold them 
separated. Use comments for commenting, not for commenting out code.

If trial code is supposed to be put out of work, then use

version(trialcode){
   ...
};

In the rare circumstances, when `version(trialcode)' does not work, the 
use `/+'-comments with extreme care, beware of `/+' and `+/' in 
included strings, `/*'- and `//'-comments.

The Style guide should be changed accordingly.

So long.
Jan 28 2004
parent reply J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
Manfred Nowak wrote:


J C Calvarese wrote:

[...]
  


I think this might be something that is difficult to teach
    


[...]

Use comments for commenting, not for commenting out code.

If trial code is supposed to be put out of work, then use

version(trialcode){
   ...
};


  


Personally I don't subscribe to this theory.  When your commenting out 
code to debug something often it's only going to be commented out short 
term (ie 60 seconds, a few days).  It's not a good idea to waste time 
putting in version(trialcode) { } when your only going to delete that 
anyway - waste of time.  Most readers will know what you mean when you 
comment out a block of code.

 I due version state for debugging and profiling code however. But 
debugging code stays in the code much like unittests.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
Jan 29 2004
parent Lewis <dethbomb hotmail.com> writes:
J Anderson wrote:

 Manfred Nowak wrote:
 

 J C Calvarese wrote:

 [...]
  


 I think this might be something that is difficult to teach
   


 [...]

 Use comments for commenting, not for commenting out code.

 If trial code is supposed to be put out of work, then use

 version(trialcode){
   ...
 };


  


 Personally I don't subscribe to this theory.  When your commenting out 
 code to debug something often it's only going to be commented out short 
 term (ie 60 seconds, a few days).  It's not a good idea to waste time 
 putting in version(trialcode) { } when your only going to delete that 
 anyway - waste of time.  Most readers will know what you mean when you 
 comment out a block of code.
 
 I due version state for debugging and profiling code however. But 
 debugging code stays in the code much like unittests.
 


if i might just interject my newbie $.02 here.. It is my opinion that a comment 
should be done in one way only, this avoids confusion and is easy to teach to 
anyone.

// <comment> EOL

simple, yet managable  :)

It seems to me as if alot of this other stuff is added to make it easier for 
people using notepad type editors to code with. I feel it should be an IDE's
job 
for selecting and commenting a block of code. If someone wishes to use a
simpler 
editor they should have to just deal with it, the way it is. Hardcore is 
supposed to be hard isnt it  ;)
Jan 29 2004
prev sibling parent J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
Carlos Santander B. wrote:


"J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> wrote in message
news:bv17ej$eim$1 digitaldaemon.com...
| Yeah, C doesn't even have /* */.
|
| --
| -Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

Wrong there: /* */ is the only way to comment C code.

-----------------------
Carlos Santander Bernal


  


I must have been tired. Whoops.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
Jan 26 2004