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: <280@bbxsda.UUCP>
Date: 20 Oct 89 18:05:53 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> <273@bbxsda.UUCP> <11348@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Reply-To: scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker)
Organization: Basis International,  Albuquerque, NM
Lines: 26

In article <11348@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>In article <273@bbxsda.UUCP> scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker) writes:
>>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.
>>[...]

>[...]
>What is wrong with this "enhancement" is that it is not a transparent
>extension.  It encourages writing code that looks like C but performs
>differently from the way C code would.

I'm still confused.  The compilers I've seen doing this have a
compiler switch that must be deliberately set by the programmer
who has made a concious decision to use nested comments.  You seem
to think that, even though it doesn't affect you at all, others still
should not be allowed to do it because it's not good for them.

Whatever you say.  I am discontinuing participation in this thread.
Frankly, I think it should be moved to soc.religion.

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