Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!killer!elg From: elg@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Eric Green) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: language commenting constructs Message-ID: <7555@killer.Dallas.TX.US> Date: 16 Mar 89 02:41:09 GMT References: <10460@lanl.gov> Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas Lines: 36 in article <10460@lanl.gov>, jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) says: > do otherwise. The comment syntax which requires explicit termination > of comments _IS_ more difficult to learn to use safely. The safe > use of the construct is also (marginally) more difficult in actual > use. It is doubtful that anyone designing a new language would > consider the old-fashioned C-like syntax to be desireable. In a recent program, I have code similiar to the following: */ /* table */ int Transitions[NUMSTATE][NUMCLASS] = { /* statenum digit number delimiter quote EOF EOL ... */ /* 0 */ 2, 5, 8, 15, 10, 19, /* 2 */ 4, 19, .... The languages in which I have programmed most are "C", Pascal, various assembly languages, and Lisp/Scheme. The first two have explicit terminators, the latter two make everything between a ";" and EOL a comment. When I do assembler or Lisp I regularly run into situations where I want to imbed a comment into a statement for clarity's sake, and can't do it. So it's sort of like the choice between using "C" and using a higher-level language. "C" is more flexible and powerful for many types of code (e.g. write a device driver in Prolog? Out of your mind!). But that flexibility has a price -- it's a lot easier to make mistakes. As far as language comment style is concerned, it's a matter of wehther you want to pay the price for flexibility or not. If your language is one that'll be used in high-risk situations -- e.g. Ada -- you might decide you DON'T want that flexibility. -- | // Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509 | | // ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg (318)989-9849 | \X/