Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!ukc!dcl-cs!gdt!gdr!exspes
From: exspes@gdr.bath.ac.uk (P E Smee)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: This one bit me today
Message-ID: <1989Oct25.090616.19276@gdt.bath.ac.uk>
Date: 25 Oct 89 09:06:16 GMT
References: <2651@hub.UUCP> <1989Oct23.160518.28851@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: exspes@gdr.bath.ac.uk (P E Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol c/o University of Bath
Lines: 22

In article <1989Oct23.160518.28851@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>I'm fairly sure that Doug agrees with me on this one:  it's highly desirable
>for compiler vendors to make *useful* innovations, but nested comments aren't.
>They're an attempt to fix something that basically isn't broken.

But they *can* be useful, particularly in the development stages of a
program.  If contents nest, then you can comment out blocks of your code
for various trial purposes, without having to worry about what's in the
block you comment out.  I've known PL/1 programmers to avoid commenting
their code because (since PL/1 comments don't nest) it would inhibit this
handy testing trick.

I *will* grant that I feel strongly that nested comments should *not* be
the default, but should require that the capability be turned on using
a compiler control argument; and that any sane company would establish
as policy that this option *could not* be used in compiling production
or release versions of the code. 
-- 
 Paul Smee               |    JANET: Smee@uk.ac.bristol
 Computer Centre         |   BITNET: Smee%uk.ac.bristol@ukacrl.bitnet
 University of Bristol   | Internet: Smee%uk.ac.bristol@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
 (Phone: +44 272 303132) |     UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!gdr.bath.ac.uk!exspes