Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: #include <foo.h> /* comment legal? */
Message-ID: <6576@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 19-Oct-87 08:16:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.6576
Posted: Mon Oct 19 08:16:41 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Oct-87 02:06:00 EDT
References: <169@decvax.UUCP> <2205@ihuxy.ATT.COM> <7517@elsie.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 10

In article <7517@elsie.UUCP> ado@elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson) writes:
>While it's true that the "translation phases" description in the draft
>Standard gives a semblance of a guarantee that comments may appear within
>preprocessor directives, implementors may well have forgotten that guarantee
>by the time they get to the preprocessor section of the standard.

I think the consensus of the X3J11 Committee is that anyone who forgets
about the Translation Phases portion of the specification cannot possibly
produce a conforming implementation.  Conformance test suites are sure
to catch such an error.