Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #77503 > unrolled thread
| Started by | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-01 12:52 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-12-01 12:24 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 151 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
// comments and \ BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-01 12:52 +0000
Re: // comments and \ me <self@example.org> - 2015-12-01 13:08 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-12-01 08:20 -0500
Re: // comments and \ me <self@example.org> - 2015-12-01 13:36 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-12-01 09:03 -0500
Re: // comments and \ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-01 14:14 +0000
Re: // comments and \ supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-01 07:40 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-01 08:55 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-01 17:15 +0000
Re: // comments and \ supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-01 09:58 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-01 18:11 +0000
Re: // comments and \ supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-01 10:18 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-01 18:20 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-01 11:07 -0800
Re: // comments and \ supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-01 11:39 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-01 12:33 -0800
Re: // comments and \ glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-12-02 01:05 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-01 19:30 +0000
Re: // comments and \ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-01 20:59 +0100
Re: // comments and \ James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-12-01 15:22 -0500
Re: // comments and \ Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-01 20:37 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-01 14:56 -0600
Re: // comments and \ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-01 22:11 +0100
Re: // comments and \ Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-12-02 03:01 -0800
Re: // comments and \ glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-12-02 00:45 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-12-01 07:52 -0700
Re: // comments and \ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-01 15:19 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-12-01 08:29 -0700
Re: // comments and \ Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-01 15:35 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-12-01 09:21 -0700
Re: // comments and \ Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-01 16:41 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-12-01 10:15 -0700
Re: // comments and \ Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-01 17:24 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-01 17:43 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-12-02 03:05 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-02 11:40 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-02 04:29 -0800
Re: // comments and \ BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-01 19:11 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-12-01 20:43 +0000
Re: // comments and \ BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-01 21:04 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-12-01 21:16 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-12-02 03:12 -0800
Re: // comments and \ BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-02 11:52 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-02 04:40 -0800
Re: // comments and \ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-02 13:55 +0100
Re: // comments and \ BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-02 13:56 +0000
Re: // comments and \ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-02 15:24 +0100
Re: // comments and \ supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-02 06:54 -0800
Re: // comments and \ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-02 16:40 +0100
Re: // comments and \ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-12-02 18:24 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-12-02 20:27 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-02 23:22 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-12-03 00:57 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-12-03 23:44 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-12-03 21:17 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-12-05 00:43 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-12-04 20:32 -0600
Re: // comments and \ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-12-05 16:06 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-12-05 13:10 -0600
Re: // comments and \ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-12-06 10:18 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-12-06 14:26 -0600
Re: // comments and \ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-03 12:45 +0100
Re: // comments and \ raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-12-04 11:45 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-04 04:20 -0800
Re: // comments and \ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-04 14:20 +0100
Re: // comments and \ James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-12-04 10:05 -0500
Re: // comments and \ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-04 17:31 +0100
Re: // comments and \ Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-12-04 17:24 -0600
Re: // comments and \ James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-12-04 18:50 -0500
Re: // comments and \ Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-12-04 20:34 -0600
Re: // comments and \ raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-12-10 20:40 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-04 09:36 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-12-05 09:05 -0500
Re: // comments and \ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-12-05 17:42 +0000
Re: // comments and \ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-06 22:23 +0100
Re: // comments and \ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-12-07 21:59 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-12-05 15:50 +0000
Re: // comments and \ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-05 18:17 +0100
Re: // comments and \ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-12-06 10:01 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-12-06 03:05 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-06 04:07 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-12-06 04:37 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-06 05:05 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-06 12:19 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-12-06 13:59 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-06 06:09 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-12-06 07:30 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-12-06 18:55 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-06 12:23 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-06 12:22 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-12-06 21:06 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-12-05 13:14 -0600
Re: // comments and \ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-12-06 10:09 +0000
Re: // comments and \ mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2015-12-03 06:15 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-12-02 08:28 -0700
Re: // comments and \ Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-02 09:01 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-12-02 21:52 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-02 16:55 -0800
Re: // comments and \ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-03 13:11 +0100
Re: // comments and \ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-12-03 23:21 +0000
Re: // comments and \ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-04 11:22 +0100
Re: // comments and \ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-12-05 01:12 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-12-04 20:39 -0600
Re: // comments and \ raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-12-04 11:14 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-04 12:25 +0000
Re: // comments and \ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-04 14:23 +0100
Re: // comments and \ Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-01 09:00 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-01 19:46 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-01 20:36 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-12-01 20:37 -0700
Re: // comments and \ BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-01 14:26 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-01 14:32 +0000
Re: // comments and \ BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-01 14:52 +0000
Re: // comments and \ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-01 16:15 +0100
Re: // comments and \ Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-01 15:28 +0000
Re: // comments and \ glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-12-02 01:26 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-01 09:12 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-01 19:17 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-01 12:32 -0600
Re: // comments and \ Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-12-02 00:01 +0000
Re: // comments and \ supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-02 07:08 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-12-02 21:05 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-02 14:22 -0800
Re: // comments and \ supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-02 14:48 -0800
Re: // comments and \ glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-12-02 23:37 +0000
Re: // comments and \ supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-02 17:10 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-02 19:24 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-03 04:10 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-12-02 21:49 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-12-03 07:28 -0700
Re: // comments and \ supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-03 09:12 -0800
Re: // comments and \ supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-03 06:53 -0800
Re: // comments and \ supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-03 15:41 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-03 15:56 -0800
Re: // comments and \ supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-03 16:44 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-03 17:29 -0800
Re: // comments and \ supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-03 19:10 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-12-02 21:59 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-12-01 07:52 -0700
Re: // comments and \ Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-01 09:21 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-01 17:26 +0000
Re: // comments and \ Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-01 10:50 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-01 10:49 -0800
Re: // comments and \ Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-01 11:34 -0800
Re: // comments and \ David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-12-22 06:44 -0500
Re: // comments and \ "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-23 14:35 -0600
Re: // comments and \ Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-23 13:00 -0800
Re: // comments and \ James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-12-23 16:58 -0500
Re: // comments and \ Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-23 14:21 -0800
Re: // comments and \ James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-12-23 16:55 -0500
Re: // comments and \ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-12-01 12:24 -0800
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 20:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3l0aj$t5i$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77555 |
On 01/12/15 19:59, David Brown wrote: <snip> > // comments were not "an entirely new concept" when introduced to C. > They were copied directly from C++, Not from BCPL, then? <snip> -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 14:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <s92s5bhlaobt4cvq5641m02r4j8obqntud@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #77566 |
On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 20:37:56 +0000, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: >On 01/12/15 19:59, David Brown wrote: > ><snip> > >> // comments were not "an entirely new concept" when introduced to C. >> They were copied directly from C++, > >Not from BCPL, then? C++ copied // comments from BCPL, C copied them from C++.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 22:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n3l28u$512$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77570 |
On 01/12/15 21:56, Robert Wessel wrote: > On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 20:37:56 +0000, Richard Heathfield > <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > >> On 01/12/15 19:59, David Brown wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> // comments were not "an entirely new concept" when introduced to C. >>> They were copied directly from C++, >> >> Not from BCPL, then? > > > C++ copied // comments from BCPL, C copied them from C++. > Indeed. In particular, I don't think BCPL had backslash line splicing (though I have only /very/ limited knowledge of the language), so C would have to match the // \ behaviour with C++.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-02 03:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30c86f765f990af3b8@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #77570 |
Robert Wessel wrote: > Richard Heathfield wrote: > >> // comments were not "an entirely new concept" when introduced to C. > >> They were copied directly from C++, > > > >Not from BCPL, then? > > C++ copied // comments from BCPL, C copied them from C++. Apparently I've spent far too much of my life coding in C, since I read this as "C++ copied" and wondered where the rest of the sentence was.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-02 00:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3leuv$ku7$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #77523 |
supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 8:14:46 AM UTC-6, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> It's a consequence of adding // comments into C in 1999 along with the >> principle of least surprise. Ever since ANSI C in 1989 (and probably >> earlier in some implementations) a newline preceded by a \ are ignored. >> This was always permitted in C #define lines, but ANSI C made it a >> general line-continuation mechanism to be performed before almost >> anything else, and just before comment removal. Thus, when // comments >> were added, the current behaviour was the least surprising -- certainly >> the behaviour that needed the fewest special-case changes to the >> existing words. > I don't know about that--since "//" comments are an entirely new concept, > they could just as well have been defined as being handled before anything > else. If anything, doing that would have made it easier to adapt existing > compiler systems, since all one would need to do is filter the source files > through a utility that strips "//" comments and feed the result into an > existing compiler, rather than having to handle "//" between pre-processing > steps. They could have, but then other things happen: char *s="This is a long string \ // that contains some pairs of \ slashes//"; Since they // are inside a string, they are not comments. -- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 07:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1by4dedxvd.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net> |
| In reply to | #77507 |
me <self@example.org> writes: > On 2015-12-01, Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> wrote: >>> I never head of this. What compiler are you using? >> One that follows the C Standard, in this regard at least. > > Crazy! I never heard of this. But I believe you! I guess that's kind of an > unusual way of commenting. You don't see it often. > > Thanks for sharing, pals. I see (and use) it a lot more often than I do /* */ comments these days.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 15:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <874mg2dwm9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #77516 |
Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes: > me <self@example.org> writes: > >> On 2015-12-01, Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> wrote: >>>> I never head of this. What compiler are you using? >>> One that follows the C Standard, in this regard at least. >> >> Crazy! I never heard of this. But I believe you! I guess that's kind of an >> unusual way of commenting. You don't see it often. >> >> Thanks for sharing, pals. > > I see (and use) it a lot more often than I do /* */ comments these > days. By which you mean // comments, of course. And (to clarify) when I said that "me" should never see that kind of comment I meant a continued // comments. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 08:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1btwo2dw6b.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net> |
| In reply to | #77519 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: > Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes: > >> me <self@example.org> writes: >> >>> On 2015-12-01, Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> wrote: >>>>> I never head of this. What compiler are you using? >>>> One that follows the C Standard, in this regard at least. >>> >>> Crazy! I never heard of this. But I believe you! I guess that's kind of an >>> unusual way of commenting. You don't see it often. >>> >>> Thanks for sharing, pals. >> >> I see (and use) it a lot more often than I do /* */ comments these >> days. > > By which you mean // comments, of course. And (to clarify) when I said > that "me" should never see that kind of comment I meant a continued // > comments. Ah, OK. I misunderstood. You're right, I don't think I've *ever* seen a continued // comment before this thread.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 15:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3keip$itf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77521 |
On 01/12/15 15:29, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > [...] I don't think I've *ever* seen > a continued // comment before this thread. I first heard of it in about 1991/2, in C++ rather than C. The product was Oracle Data Query, and the problem code looked something like this: foo(path); // for unit testing, use c:\odq\dev\ut\foo\ bar(); baz(); and the code jumped straight from foo() to baz() without ever entering bar(). It took a *long* time to spot the problem, after which the house style guidelines were amended to outlaw // comments. (I doubt very much whether that is still the case, though. For some reason, // comments are enormously popular.) -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 09:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1bh9k2dtri.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net> |
| In reply to | #77522 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 01/12/15 15:29, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >> [...] I don't think I've *ever* seen >> a continued // comment before this thread. > > I first heard of it in about 1991/2, in C++ rather than C. The product > was Oracle Data Query, and the problem code looked something like > this: > > foo(path); // for unit testing, use c:\odq\dev\ut\foo\ > bar(); > baz(); > > and the code jumped straight from foo() to baz() without ever entering > bar(). It took a *long* time to spot the problem, after which the > house style guidelines were amended to outlaw // comments. (I doubt > very much whether that is still the case, though. For some reason, // > comments are enormously popular.) I like them for two reasons -- I don't have to look for the end of a comment block. It's just a block of // If I'm in the throes of debugging I can comment out a bunch of code with /* */ without a comment throwing in a monkey wrench.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 16:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3kig7$2bg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77525 |
On 01/12/15 16:21, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > > I like [ // comments ] for two reasons -- > > I don't have to look for the end of a comment block. It's just a block > of // Syntax colouring? :-) > > If I'm in the throes of debugging I can comment out a bunch of code with > /* */ without a comment throwing in a monkey wrench. #if 0 #endif /* */ is for comments, not code. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 10:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1bd1uqdr9q.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net> |
| In reply to | #77527 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 01/12/15 16:21, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >> >> I like [ // comments ] for two reasons -- >> >> I don't have to look for the end of a comment block. It's just a block >> of // > > Syntax colouring? :-) I *hate* syntax coloring. I've never seen a set of colors selected that I didn't find distracting, and most of the sets I've seen have done things like use yellow on white background... >> >> If I'm in the throes of debugging I can comment out a bunch of code with >> /* */ without a comment throwing in a monkey wrench. > > #if 0 > > #endif > > /* */ is for comments, not code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 17:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3kl09$dhn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77531 |
On 01/12/15 17:15, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > >> On 01/12/15 16:21, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >>> >>> I like [ // comments ] for two reasons -- >>> >>> I don't have to look for the end of a comment block. It's just a block >>> of // >> >> Syntax colouring? :-) > > I *hate* syntax coloring. I've never seen a set of colors selected that > I didn't find distracting, and most of the sets I've seen have done > things like use yellow on white background... Personally I like syntax colouring, but I hate default colour schemes as much as you do, which is why the colour scheme is one of the first things I set up when installing a new editor or IDE. I do it once, it takes ten minutes tops, and then it's done forever on that machine. (For some editors, I need only copy the config file from another box, which is even quicker.) -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 17:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3km2t$hjm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77534 |
On 01/12/15 17:37, Stefan Ram wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >> Personally I like syntax colouring, but I hate default colour schemes as > > I had a new IDE for C and C++ with syntax coloring, so I set > all colors to black. I observed that there still was some > styling: All keywords were bold. I left it as it was. > > Two weeks later, I observed that it makes the variable name > »this« bold in my C programs. I've seen that too, although I can't now remember where. It is relatively harmless, though - I was more annoyed by Visual Studio's // comment in <math.h>, which gave me a level 4 warning on *every* compilation that included that header. (I haven't kept up to date with Visual Studio, so I don't know whether it's still a problem.) -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-02 03:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30c8704c984a6fedb9@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #77534 |
Richard Heathfield wrote: > Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > > Richard Heathfield writes: > >> Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > >>> > >>> I like [ // comments ] for two reasons -- > >>> > >>> I don't have to look for the end of a comment block. It's just a block > >>> of // > >> > >> Syntax colouring? :-) > > > > I *hate* syntax coloring. I've never seen a set of colors selected that > > I didn't find distracting, and most of the sets I've seen have done > > things like use yellow on white background... > > Personally I like syntax colouring, but I hate default colour schemes as > much as you do, which is why the colour scheme is one of the first > things I set up when installing a new editor or IDE. I do it once, it > takes ten minutes tops, and then it's done forever on that machine. (For > some editors, I need only copy the config file from another box, which > is even quicker.) Can you share your color choices? (In general terms, I don't need every last detail.) I've never seen one I could stand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-02 11:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3ml75$424$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77602 |
On 02/12/15 11:05, Philip Lantz wrote: > Richard Heathfield wrote: <snip> >> Personally I like syntax colouring, but I hate default colour schemes as >> much as you do, which is why the colour scheme is one of the first >> things I set up when installing a new editor or IDE. I do it once, it >> takes ten minutes tops, and then it's done forever on that machine. (For >> some editors, I need only copy the config file from another box, which >> is even quicker.) > > Can you share your color choices? (In general terms, I don't need every > last detail.) I've never seen one I could stand. Default: black background, bold green foreground. (This is mostly for historical reasons - I cut my teeth on Trend DT-22s - but it's also because I find it clear, non-glary, and relaxing.) Keywords: cyan. Operators: cyan. Literals: white. Comments: yellow. I never did get the hang of subtlety. :-) -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-02 04:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9f56c53b-5578-43b6-8ff5-00dc3436b758@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #77604 |
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 11:40:55 AM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 02/12/15 11:05, Philip Lantz wrote: > > > Can you share your color choices? (In general terms, I don't need every > > last detail.) I've never seen one I could stand. > > Default: black background, bold green foreground. (This is mostly for > historical reasons - I cut my teeth on Trend DT-22s - but it's also > because I find it clear, non-glary, and relaxing.) > > Keywords: cyan. > Operators: cyan. > Literals: white. > Comments: yellow. > > I never did get the hang of subtlety. :-) > I find the most useful is green for comments and red/brown for string literals. That's because of the fact that you can stringise or comment out text which otherwise would be code. Blue keywords don't do any harm, but in C you know the keywords, and functions can't be mistaken for anything except function pointers (so I always use the (*fptr)(args); syntax to make clear that it's an indirect call).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 19:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3kr7s$86b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77527 |
On 01/12/2015 16:41, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 01/12/15 16:21, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >> >> I like [ // comments ] for two reasons -- >> >> I don't have to look for the end of a comment block. It's just a block >> of // > > Syntax colouring? :-) The editor needs to know the rules. My editor will highlight // comments up to the end of the line, or rather de-highlight them so they don't obtrude on the code. But it doesn't know about the trailing \ quirk so the next line appears normal and making it even harder to debug. The other revelation about how \ actually works means my editor's syntax colouring cannot work correctly in general, as it only looks at complete tokens in a given line. But there could be a very long identifier or literal, split up over hundred of lines with \, with the editor displaying the middle part. So not only does it need to follow a forward chain of \s hundreds of lines long, but it needs to search backwards too (so that it can establish whether it's a keyword, identifier, number or string). It's really not worth the candle. (BTW the Nasm assembler where I first saw the //...\ problem (as ; ... \ in its syntax), also does C's thing with being to split tokens across lines with \. I don't believe it's a coincidence!) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 20:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn5s1j0.5q5.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #77527 |
On Tue, 2015-12-01, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 01/12/15 16:21, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >> >> I like [ // comments ] for two reasons -- >> >> I don't have to look for the end of a comment block. It's just a block >> of // > > Syntax colouring? :-) > >> >> If I'm in the throes of debugging I can comment out a bunch of code with >> /* */ without a comment throwing in a monkey wrench. > > #if 0 > > #endif Or often better, use the version control system and just delete the code. > /* */ is for comments, not code. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 21:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3l1rv$47l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77568 |
On 01/12/2015 20:43, Jorgen Grahn wrote: > On Tue, 2015-12-01, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 01/12/15 16:21, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >>> >>> I like [ // comments ] for two reasons -- >>> >>> I don't have to look for the end of a comment block. It's just a block >>> of // >> >> Syntax colouring? :-) >> >>> >>> If I'm in the throes of debugging I can comment out a bunch of code with >>> /* */ without a comment throwing in a monkey wrench. >> >> #if 0 >> >> #endif > > Or often better, use the version control system and just delete the > code. Better? I comment and uncomment lines /all the time/ while developing code, sometimes several times a minute. I use single-key commands in my editor to instantly comment/uncomment the current line then move on to the next. With key repeat it can do blocks of code at 20 lines per second. Commented blocks can be nested. I can compare commented/uncommented lines instantly. One common use is to comment out the real code and use temporary test code to try something new; I don't want to delete working code! How long would a version system take to do that with trivial blocks of code? Apart which which, I might in the middle move on to work on another part of the application, then come back to this bit. How to undo the obvious comments without undoing anything else? (I've never used version control but it sounds like a very big sledgehammer to for what we're talking about. Using #if 0 is just a standard hammer for the same job!) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web