I've followed all the nested/not nested comment discussions with interest. I am reluctant to change the meaning of /* */ from C and C++.

How about a new comment style,

    {{ nested comment }}

to indicate nested comments? Is it just too lame to have three (3) different
commenting methods in D?

January 22, 2002

Re: {{ nested comment }}

Posted by Juan Carlos Arevalo Baeza
in reply to Walter

Permalink

Juan Carlos Arevalo Baeza

Posted in reply to Walter

Permalink

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:a2kr5h$r70$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> I've followed all the nested/not nested comment discussions with interest.
I
> am reluctant to change the meaning of /* */ from C and C++.
>
> How about a new comment style,
>
>     {{ nested comment }}
>
> to indicate nested comments? Is it just too lame to have three (3)
different
> commenting methods in D?

   I wouldn't mind if you didn't, really. But if you're going to do it, try
some combination of symbols that would be illegal otherwise, just in case.
For example:

(< ... >)
[[ ... ]]
(= ... =)
<=| ... |=>
>=> ... <=<
|> ... <|

   Personally, besides the beauty-looking ones, I like this one best,
clearly:

[[ ... ]]

Salutaciones,
                         JCAB

January 23, 2002

Re: {{ nested comment }}

Posted by Russell Borogove
in reply to Walter

Permalink

Russell Borogove

Posted in reply to Walter

Permalink

Walter wrote:

> I've followed all the nested/not nested comment discussions with interest. I
> am reluctant to change the meaning of /* */ from C and C++.
> 
> How about a new comment style,
> 
>     {{ nested comment }}
> 
> to indicate nested comments? Is it just too lame to have three (3) different
> commenting methods in D?


*sob*

<broken_record_mode>

I can nest comments in C++ or D, as currently implemented,
all day long:

//brokencode//   if (a == b)
//brokencode//   {
//brokencode//      DoTheThing();   // this does the thing
//brokencode////oldcode//      DoTheOldThing(); // we useta do this
//brokencode//   }

Look, three layers of nested comments.

</broken_record_mode>

-RB

January 23, 2002

Re: {{ nested comment }}

Posted by Mike Wynn
in reply to Walter

Permalink

Mike Wynn

Posted in reply to Walter

Permalink

Have you considered looking for <HTML> at the begining of every source file
in fact < appears as the first non white space char, then the chances are
that its D inside HTML. so a program can begin <code>
if you then removed <SPAN> (nested) areas from within the <code> sections
you get have nestable comments without changing the syntax of D

or use <span> </span>
always as nestable comment always

or to veiw comments with a bit of logic ...
/* */  original c comments
//       one line c++ comments
why not continue the trend
/{   }/  nestable D comments

/<symbol> is comment { we all know is block/scope


"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:a2kr5h$r70$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> I've followed all the nested/not nested comment discussions with interest.
I
> am reluctant to change the meaning of /* */ from C and C++.
>
> How about a new comment style,
>
>     {{ nested comment }}
>
> to indicate nested comments? Is it just too lame to have three (3)
different
> commenting methods in D?
>


Mike.

January 23, 2002

Re: {{ nested comment }}

Posted by Robert W. Cunningham
in reply to Russell Borogove

Permalink

Robert W. Cunningham

Posted in reply to Russell Borogove

Permalink

Russell Borogove wrote:

> Walter wrote:
>
> > I've followed all the nested/not nested comment discussions with interest. I am reluctant to change the meaning of /* */ from C and C++.
> >
> > How about a new comment style,
> >
> >     {{ nested comment }}
> >
> > to indicate nested comments? Is it just too lame to have three (3) different
> > commenting methods in D?
>
> *sob*
>
> <broken_record_mode>
>
> I can nest comments in C++ or D, as currently implemented, all day long:
>
> //brokencode//   if (a == b)
> //brokencode//   {
> //brokencode//      DoTheThing();   // this does the thing
> //brokencode////oldcode//      DoTheOldThing(); // we useta do this
> //brokencode//   }
>
> Look, three layers of nested comments.
>
> </broken_record_mode>
>
> -RB

*gasp!*

Struck by the obvious.

You know, I do per-line commenting all the time in assembler.  But we tend to use semicolons and octothorps ("#") there.

Why my brain resists doing it in block-structured languages is a mystery to me. Seriously, I just hadn't considered it.  Especially when all program editors allow you to create a trivial macro to easily insert whatever you want at the start of each line (often used to rejustify a relocated block of code).

Suddenly, block-structured comments, especially nested comments, make no sense to me.  Why treat comments as code, or code as comments?  Code is code, and comments are comments!  Just because you are commenting-out some code does NOT mean your comment *is* code!  It's just another comment...

Think of comments as an "escape from" the language, not as "part of" the language.  Now, what syntax should they have?  While we're at it, I think it is high time comments had a reasonable syntax as well.  They should parse!  Well?

Wait...  Now I remember:  My first programming language, FORTRAN (on punched cards, no less), reserved the first column for comment characters.  Placing a "C" there would cause the compiler to drop the entire line.  I think trailing comments (with an octothorp) didn't appear until FORTRAN '77 or so.

And BASIC actually made comments part of the language, with the "REMARK" keyword (implemented, of course, as a PRINT to the bit-bucket).  Did any other languages dedicate a keyword for comments?

(Clearly, English uses parentheses for commenting.)

-BobC

January 23, 2002

Re: {{ nested comment }}

Posted by Rajiv Bhagwat
in reply to Mike Wynn

Permalink

Rajiv Bhagwat

Posted in reply to Mike Wynn

Permalink

I have seen the //brokencode// style comments further in this thread, even then, inserting a smaller 'commenter' just at the start and at the end feels better.

Similar to clip/clipprep style, I suggest,
/a{ ........  /a}
Where 'a' could be any single digit or number. This will allow true nesting
of comments, say like:

/a{
part1 of the code
    /b{
    part2 of the code
    /b}
part3 of the code
/a}

Of course, you can adopt "//a{" to deviate little from the usual // style
comments.
- Rajiv

"Mike Wynn" <mike.wynn@l8night.co.uk> wrote in message news:a2kvgk$tka$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Have you considered looking for <HTML> at the begining of every source
file
> in fact < appears as the first non white space char, then the chances are
> that its D inside HTML. so a program can begin <code>
> if you then removed <SPAN> (nested) areas from within the <code> sections
> you get have nestable comments without changing the syntax of D
>
> or use <span> </span>
> always as nestable comment always
>
> or to veiw comments with a bit of logic ...
> /* */  original c comments
> //       one line c++ comments
> why not continue the trend
> /{   }/  nestable D comments
>
> /<symbol> is comment { we all know is block/scope
>
>
> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:a2kr5h$r70$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> > I've followed all the nested/not nested comment discussions with
interest.
> I
> > am reluctant to change the meaning of /* */ from C and C++.
> >
> > How about a new comment style,
> >
> >     {{ nested comment }}
> >
> > to indicate nested comments? Is it just too lame to have three (3)
> different
> > commenting methods in D?
> >
>
>
> Mike.
>
>

January 23, 2002

Re: {{ nested comment }}

Posted by Sean L. Palmer
in reply to Mike Wynn

Permalink

Sean L. Palmer

Posted in reply to Mike Wynn

Permalink

I actually really like this idea... /{ }/ sends a clear message that a comment "scope" is being introduced and then closed.  It's not legal anywhere else.  And it fits well with the other comments, similar, but just different enough to not be confusing.  I don't know that the matching identifiers the other replier suggested are necessary, but I think some rules about whether  something like this is legal should be devised:

/{

/* /}  */

does the  /} even get parsed, since it's inside some other comment?  My guess is that the above would have to be flagged as an error.

Sean

"Mike Wynn" <mike.wynn@l8night.co.uk> wrote in message news:a2kvgk$tka$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Have you considered looking for <HTML> at the begining of every source
file
> in fact < appears as the first non white space char, then the chances are
> that its D inside HTML. so a program can begin <code>
> if you then removed <SPAN> (nested) areas from within the <code> sections
> you get have nestable comments without changing the syntax of D
>
> or use <span> </span>
> always as nestable comment always
>
> or to veiw comments with a bit of logic ...
> /* */  original c comments
> //       one line c++ comments
> why not continue the trend
> /{   }/  nestable D comments
>
> /<symbol> is comment { we all know is block/scope
>
>
> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:a2kr5h$r70$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> > I've followed all the nested/not nested comment discussions with
interest.
> I
> > am reluctant to change the meaning of /* */ from C and C++.
> >
> > How about a new comment style,
> >
> >     {{ nested comment }}
> >
> > to indicate nested comments? Is it just too lame to have three (3)
> different
> > commenting methods in D?
> >
>
>
> Mike.
>
>

January 23, 2002

Re: {{ nested comment }}

Posted by OddesE
in reply to Mike Wynn

Permalink

OddesE

Posted in reply to Mike Wynn

Permalink

"Mike Wynn" <mike.wynn@l8night.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a2kvgk$tka$1@digitaldaemon.com...
<SNIP>
>
> or to veiw comments with a bit of logic ...
> /* */  original c comments
> //       one line c++ comments
> why not continue the trend
> /{   }/  nestable D comments
>
> /<symbol> is comment { we all know is block/scope
>
<SNIP>
>
> Mike.


YES!  Agreed! I think this is definitely a good soulution!
/     Signals a comment,
{     Signals a nestable block, so
/{    Signals a nestable comment.

I would be very happy with this solution.


--
Stijn
OddesE_XYZ@hotmail.com
http://OddesE.cjb.net
__________________________________________
Remove _XYZ from my address when replying by mail

January 23, 2002

Re: {{ nested comment }}

Posted by OddesE
in reply to Rajiv Bhagwat

Permalink

OddesE

Posted in reply to Rajiv Bhagwat

Permalink

"Rajiv Bhagwat" <dataflow@vsnl.com> wrote in message news:a2lls2$1chf$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I have seen the file://brokencode// style comments further in this thread,
even
> then, inserting a smaller 'commenter' just at the start and at the end
feels
> better.
>
> Similar to clip/clipprep style, I suggest,
> /a{ ........  /a}
> Where 'a' could be any single digit or number. This will allow true
nesting
> of comments, say like:
>
> /a{
> part1 of the code
>     /b{
>     part2 of the code
>     /b}
> part3 of the code
> /a}
>
> Of course, you can adopt "//a{" to deviate little from the usual // style
> comments.
> - Rajiv
>

No, I don't like it. Matching up the correct characters is just a drag and totally unnecesary.  "//a" doesn't seem logical to me because // signals a single line comment, not a block.


--
Stijn
OddesE_XYZ@hotmail.com
http://OddesE.cjb.net
__________________________________________
Remove _XYZ from my address when replying by mail

January 23, 2002

Re: {{ nested comment }}

Posted by OddesE
in reply to Robert W. Cunningham

Permalink

OddesE

Posted in reply to Robert W. Cunningham

Permalink

"Robert W. Cunningham" <rwc_2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3C4E366D.5AEEFECC@yahoo.com...
> Russell Borogove wrote:
>
> > Walter wrote:
> >
> > > I've followed all the nested/not nested comment discussions with
interest. I
> > > am reluctant to change the meaning of /* */ from C and C++.
> > >
> > > How about a new comment style,
> > >
> > >     {{ nested comment }}
> > >
> > > to indicate nested comments? Is it just too lame to have three (3)
different
> > > commenting methods in D?
> >
> > *sob*
> >
> > <broken_record_mode>
> >
> > I can nest comments in C++ or D, as currently implemented, all day long:
> >
> > file://brokencode//   if (a == b)
> > file://brokencode//   {
> > file://brokencode//      DoTheThing();   // this does the thing
> > file://brokencode////oldcode//      DoTheOldThing(); // we useta do this
> > file://brokencode//   }
> >
> > Look, three layers of nested comments.
> >
> > </broken_record_mode>
> >
> > -RB
>
> *gasp!*
>
> Struck by the obvious.
>
> You know, I do per-line commenting all the time in assembler.  But we tend
to use
> semicolons and octothorps ("#") there.
>
> Why my brain resists doing it in block-structured languages is a mystery
to me.
> Seriously, I just hadn't considered it.  Especially when all program
editors
> allow you to create a trivial macro to easily insert whatever you want at
the
> start of each line (often used to rejustify a relocated block of code).
>
> Suddenly, block-structured comments, especially nested comments, make no
sense to
> me.  Why treat comments as code, or code as comments?  Code is code, and
comments
> are comments!  Just because you are commenting-out some code does NOT mean
your
> comment *is* code!  It's just another comment...
>
> Think of comments as an "escape from" the language, not as "part of" the language.  Now, what syntax should they have?  While we're at it, I think
it is
> high time comments had a reasonable syntax as well.  They should parse!
Well?
>
> Wait...  Now I remember:  My first programming language, FORTRAN (on
punched
> cards, no less), reserved the first column for comment characters.
Placing a "C"
> there would cause the compiler to drop the entire line.  I think trailing comments (with an octothorp) didn't appear until FORTRAN '77 or so.
>
> And BASIC actually made comments part of the language, with the "REMARK"
keyword
> (implemented, of course, as a PRINT to the bit-bucket).  Did any other
languages
> dedicate a keyword for comments?
>
> (Clearly, English uses parentheses for commenting.)
>
>
> -BobC
>

What I don't understand is that some of you defend non-nesting
comments so fiercefully.
When discussing nesting comments, the reasons for not having
them usually boil down to two things:

1) You don't need them
2) It is not standard

As to 1), If I really wouldn't need them, why am I asking for them? At school I learned that as a software developer I shouldn't tell users of a program just "You don't need that", without explaining very carefully why you don't need it and why it would be a problem to include the feature. Just because *you* think a certain feature is unnecessary, doesn't mean they share your opinion. If this holds true for programs, why shouldn't it hold true for languages?

As to 2), you're right, but there are a *lot* of non-standard
features in D, so adding (a very usable) one more to it wouldn't
hurt that much  :)

I just don't see what the big problem with nested comments is. Please explain that to me. Would some things go terribly wrong, or be very diffcult?


--
Stijn
OddesE_XYZ@hotmail.com
http://OddesE.cjb.net
__________________________________________
Remove _XYZ from my address when replying by mail


giving some damn good reasons as why including the features of

Top | Forum index | About this forum

Forums