Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!wums2!bethge From: bethge@wums.wustl.edu Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Re^2: Why nested comments not allowed? Message-ID: <1975.25e0048c@wums.wustl.edu> Date: 19 Feb 90 20:37:00 GMT References: <236100027@prism> <7330017@hpcllak.HP.COM> <1990Feb19.143619.17663@uncecs.edu> Lines: 28 In article <1990Feb19.143619.17663@uncecs.edu>, utoddl@uncecs.edu (Todd M. Lewis) writes: > ... Because we've been doing it that way for eons doesn't mean it's a > "better way." Of course, without true nested comments it's the > only way, but that, too, is beside the point. #ifdef/#endif is better ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > for conditionally compiling code fragments. Nested comments are the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > better way to "comment out a section of code that contains comments." > Your own words--it should be obvious. I am continually amazed that > the C community, which claims a plethora of operators is good and that > professionals should be able to handle them, which can nest {}, [], (), > and #ifdef/#endif in myriad ways, which declares pointers safe if used by > responsible programmers, could be intimidated by the concept of something > as benign, useful, and elegent as nested comments. Sounds like a lot of > NIH to me. > Sure, nesting of comments can be accomplished with #ifdef/#endif. So what? > while and for can be accomplished with goto. But it's the wrong tool. This apprears to be a religious issue. It is not the least bit "obvious" to me that "nested comments are the better way" to suppress the compilation of a section of code. What is this, if not conditional compilation? ____________________________________________________________________________ Paul H. Bethge bethge@wums.wustl.edu Biochemistry, Box 8231 bethge@wums.bitnet Washington University St. Louis, MO 63110 314-362-3354