Are nested multiline /* */ comments allowed in D?

no. Use the version statement to block out sections.

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> wrote in message news:a0t1rg$kjn$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Are nested multiline /* */ comments allowed in D?
>
>

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:a0tbj5$ptm$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> no. Use the version statement to block out sections.

Unfortunately, version cannot comment out blocks with bad syntax - which is needed sometimes. For example, I occasionally start writing something, then decide to try another idea, but comment the unfinished block out rather than deleting it in case I'll revert back to it later... and such a block may have improper syntax (like "if(a == ").

I've been considering making version more tolerant of bad syntax, but it is going to have to count { and } !

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> wrote in message news:a0th24$svc$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:a0tbj5$ptm$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> > no. Use the version statement to block out sections.
>
> Unfortunately, version cannot comment out blocks with bad syntax - which is needed sometimes. For example, I occasionally start writing something, then decide to try another idea, but comment the unfinished block out rather than deleting it in case I'll revert back to it later... and such a block may have improper syntax (like "if(a == ").
>
>

That's perfect.  Surely we can make the brackets nest correctly.

Sean

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:a0tv8q$15rd$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I've been considering making version more tolerant of bad syntax, but it
is
> going to have to count { and } !
>
> "Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> wrote in message news:a0th24$svc$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:a0tbj5$ptm$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >
> > > no. Use the version statement to block out sections.
> >
> > Unfortunately, version cannot comment out blocks with bad syntax - which is needed sometimes. For example, I occasionally start writing something, then decide to try another idea, but comment the unfinished block out rather than deleting it in case I'll revert back to it later... and such a block may have improper syntax (like "if(a == ").

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:a0tv8q$15rd$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> I've been considering making version more tolerant of bad syntax, but it
is
> going to have to count { and } !

Still... what's wrong with nested comments? It's really funny to see that, even though ANSI commitee didn't make them standart, most C++ compilers around have a switch which enables them. It's not so hard to implement, but could be a useful thing!

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> wrote in message news:a0ujps$1iqj$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:a0tv8q$15rd$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> > I've been considering making version more tolerant of bad syntax, but it
> is
> > going to have to count { and } !
>
> Still... what's wrong with nested comments? It's really funny to see that, even though ANSI commitee didn't make them standart, most C++ compilers around have a switch which enables them. It's not so hard to implement, but could be a useful thing!

I'd like to try using the version statement unless it really reaches a dead end.

Walter wrote:

> "Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> wrote in message news:a0ujps$1iqj$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:a0tv8q$15rd$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >
> > > I've been considering making version more tolerant of bad syntax, but it
> > is
> > > going to have to count { and } !
> >
> > Still... what's wrong with nested comments? It's really funny to see that, even though ANSI commitee didn't make them standart, most C++ compilers around have a switch which enables them. It's not so hard to implement, but could be a useful thing!
>
> I'd like to try using the version statement unless it really reaches a dead end.

... And we have to resort to using a pre-processor!

BTW, I've used M4 for years to do stuff other preprocessors failed to do for me.  I'll probably find uses for M4 with D as well.  Perhaps weeding out code that should not be compiled is a valid use.  Otherwise, all the code you feed in should get compiled, right?


-BobC

"Robert W. Cunningham" <rwc_2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3C33BF45.187E8D57@yahoo.com...

> BTW, I've used M4 for years to do stuff other preprocessors failed to do
for
> me.  I'll probably find uses for M4 with D as well.  Perhaps weeding out
code
> that should not be compiled is a valid use.  Otherwise, all the code you
feed
> in should get compiled, right?

Nope, version and debug statements don't compile the code if the condition is not satisfied.

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> ha scritto nel messaggio news:a0th24$svc$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:a0tbj5$ptm$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> > no. Use the version statement to block out sections.
>
> Unfortunately, version cannot comment out blocks with bad syntax - which is needed sometimes. For example, I occasionally start writing something, then decide to try another idea, but comment the unfinished block out rather than deleting it in case I'll revert back to it later... and such a block may have improper syntax (like "if(a == ").

I also often need nested comments as a fast way to comment-out weird code.
To me seems better to define a new style of comment to comment out big
blocks of code
(or a block of natural language description). This new "wipe-out" comment
must be
clearly visible and we can choose it can be nested (it's new, so noone
should complain).
I think to something like:

>@@
 .. big block of text, with nested >@@ and <@@ ...
<@@

I like to think this comment must be at column 0, so it's easy to distinguish from normal code

Ciao.