Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:23330 alt.religion.computers:764
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!ukc!slxsys!ibmpcug!ronald
From: ronald@ibmpcug.co.uk (Ronald Khoo)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,alt.religion.computers
Subject: Nested comments (WAS Re: This one bit me today)
Message-ID: <2efe.25464472@ibmpcug.co.uk>
Date: 25 Oct 89 23:40:34 GMT
References: <2651@hub.UUCP> <1989Oct23.160518.28851@utzoo.uucp> <1989Oct25.090616.19276@gdt.bath.ac.uk>
Reply-To: ronald@ibmpcug.CO.UK (Ronald Khoo)
Followup-To: alt.religion.computers
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.
Lines: 18

In article <1989Oct25.090616.19276@gdt.bath.ac.uk> exspes@gdr.bath.ac.uk (P E Smee) writes:
>                         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.

Well, I don't know PL/1, so maybe it's a language/compilation system
deficiency, but it sounds more like incompetence to me... what's
wrong with stubs and new code in a fresh source file ?

Anyway, back to C, you have #if 0 (#ifdef notdef to you ancient lot :-)
to fall back on...

Any followups are probably gonna be religious in nature, so I'm taking this
discussion to alt.religion.computers, or maybe it'll die (please!) ?
-- 
Ronald.Khoo@ibmpcug.CO.UK (The IBM PC User Group, PO Box 360, Harrow HA1 4LQ)
Path: ...mc$CPU!ukc!ibmpcug!ronald  Phone: +44-1-863 1191  Fax: +44-1-863 6095
$Header: /users/ronald/.signature,v 1.2 89/10/16 17:14:28 ronald Exp $ :-)