Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!unmvax!bbx!bbxsda!scott
From: scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: This one bit me today
Message-ID: <273@bbxsda.UUCP>
Date: 19 Oct 89 15:46:14 GMT
References: <2432@hub.UUCP> <568@sppy00.UUCP> <750@philmtl.philips.ca> <4147@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <267@wsl.UUCP> <244@bbxsda.UUCP> <1901@xyzzy.UUCP> <255@bbxsda.UUCP> <1949@xyzzy.UUCP>
Reply-To: scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker)
Organization: Basis International,  Albuquerque, NM
Lines: 37

Scott Amspoker writes:

>>>>Another easy pitfall in C is forgetting to close a comment.  On compilers
>>>>that don't nest comments this will cause some code to be swallowed up

I was incorrect in my above comment.  Nested comments have *nothing* to
do with it.

Bob Goudreau writes:

>>>Any compiler that allows nesting of comments isn't a C compiler anyway,
>>>by either K&R or ANSI standards.

Scott Amspoker writes (FYI):

>>Believe it or not - that is a command line switch on some C compilers.

Bob Goudreau writes:

>My point was that any such compilers (or compiler-instantiations created
>by invoking the same program with different switches) may *claim* to be
>C compilers, but claiming isn't enough.  Such compilers are *broken*, at
>least as C compilers.
>[...]

I don't get it.  Are you saying that a C compiler that allows the option
of nested comments is *broken*?  I believe Turbo C has a nested comments
option.  I agree that a compiler that insists on nesting comments is
probably non-conforming (I say "probably" because I can't recite the
actual ANSI text at this moment).  But what's wrong with command line
options that allow various enhancements?

-- 
Scott Amspoker
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM
(505) 345-5232
unmvax.cs.unm.edu!bbx!bbxsda!scott