Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!scgvaxd!wlbr!voder!nsc!hplabs!sri-unix!phil@RICE.ARPA From: phil@RICE.ARPA Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: Unterminated comments Message-ID: <13116@sri-arpa.UUCP> Date: Mon, 22-Oct-84 03:23:50 EST Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.13116 Posted: Mon Oct 22 03:23:50 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 28-Oct-84 07:36:25 EST Lines: 40 From: William LeFebvre Okay. I may have misinterpreted the message. Doug, if I jumped on you without cause then I apologize. But please tell me exactly what you meant. I am interested. You said: -------------------- (1) Nested comments /* ... A ... /* ... B ... */ ... A ... */ (2) Comment-to-end-of-line // ... (1) would also give an "unterminated comment starting on line nnn" error if a close-comment */ were omitted, thereby addressing in a different way the issue this note is a response to... -------------------- I took the phrase "if a close-comment */ were omitted" to mean a close comment for any open comment. Looking at it again I see that it could have implied "a close-comment" in the context of "/* ... /* ... */ ... */". So do you mean that the warning message would be given only if the comment nesting level was greater than one at some point on the line? Along the same lines, what about comments like: /* if input is "/*" then start throwing away characters */ Or worse yet (a sloppy style): /* if input is /* then start throwing away characters */ My main objection is that the only characters that have ever had meaning inside a comment were the comment end characters "*/". Now you want to add another sequence. I am afraid that there are some programs that were quite legal before that would produce warning (or error) messages with this change in syntax. Is that worth worrying about or is it just picking bones? William LeFebvre Department of Computer Science Rice University