Brad Roberts wrote:
> Chris Nicholson-Sauls wrote:
>> BCS wrote:
>>> What might be the most useful would be for the compiler to check for a comment at the end of a block and if it clams to close a block that it doesn't, emit a warning.
>>>
>>>
>>> //////these pass
>>>
>>>
>>> for(int i=0;i<10;i++){
>>>     ...
>>> }//CLOSE for i
>>>
>>> while(j<k){
>>>     ...
>>> }/*CLOSE while j < k this block has more comments */
>>>
>>> outer: switch(n){
>>>     ...
>>> }/+CLOSE outer: +/
>>>
>>>
>>> //////these fail
>>>
>>>
>>> inner: switch(n){
>>>     ...
>>> }//CLOSE outer:
>>>
>>> for(int i=0;i<10;i++){
>>>     ...
>>> }//CLOSE for j
>>
>> Now that's actually not a bad idea.  Keeps it "green" when editing, remains optional, and provides more than just the visual cue (if the compiler in use supports it).  Might've been useful in some of the more convoluted things I've written (like a few parsers/lexers with insane nesting).
>>
>> -- Chris Nicholson-Sauls
> 
> Having the compiler care about contents of a comment is a dangerous slippery slope.  If you want to do this in some sort of a lint-esque tool, then go for it, I guess.
> 
> Later,
> Brad

Generally true...  And probably would be the better way to go.  We do, however, have some minor precedant in DMD's DDoc feature which is based entirely in comments.  ;)  Granted that's already proven a little dangerous, but useful.

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls