D - nesting comments?

Mark Shackelford <mark shackelford-family.org> Aug 16 2001

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Aug 16 2001

Matt Busigin <mbusigin helios.spang.org.uk> Aug 16 2001

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Aug 16 2001

"Angus Graham" <agraham_d agraham.ca> Aug 16 2001

"Kent Sandvik" <sandvik excitehome.net> Aug 16 2001

Erik Rounds <erikr aatrix.com> Aug 22 2001

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Aug 23 2001

"Rajiv Bhagwat" <dataflow vsnl.com> Aug 23 2001
Dan Hursh <hursh infonet.isl.net> Aug 23 2001

Russell Bornschlegel <kaleja estarcion.com> Aug 24 2001

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Aug 16 2001

"Sean L. Palmer" <spalmer iname.com> Oct 28 2001

rogalsky <rogalsky theorie1.physik.uni-erlangen.de> Aug 17 2001

"Sheldon Simms" <sheldon semanticedge.com> Aug 17 2001

Christophe de Dinechin <descubes earthlink.net> Aug 17 2001

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Aug 20 2001

Mark Shackelford <mark shackelford-family.org> writes:

Hi!

With neither nesting comments nor preprocessor #if 0 / #endif available,
how would a D programmer comment out a large section of code that
contains multiline /* */ comments? It won't work. This would force
everyone to use // comments everywhere just to be able at some future
point to comment out blocks of code.

Either make /* ... */ nest, or add another nesting comment type. You
know, the evil Modula (* ... *) kind. ;^)

Cheers!

--
Mark Shackelford

Aug 16 2001

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

To comment out a large block of code:

    if (0)
    {
        ... block of code ...
    }

The code must be syntactically correct, but not semantically
correct. -Walter

"Mark Shackelford" <mark shackelford-family.org> wrote in message
news:3B7C4DD2.8B5E9470 shackelford-family.org...
 Hi!

 With neither nesting comments nor preprocessor #if 0 / #endif available,
 how would a D programmer comment out a large section of code that
 contains multiline /* */ comments? It won't work. This would force
 everyone to use // comments everywhere just to be able at some future
 point to comment out blocks of code.

 Either make /* ... */ nest, or add another nesting comment type. You
 know, the evil Modula (* ... *) kind. ;^)

 Cheers!

 --
 Mark Shackelford

Aug 16 2001

Matt Busigin <mbusigin helios.spang.org.uk> writes:

Walter wrote:
 To comment out a large block of code:
 
     if (0)
     {
         ... block of code ...
     }
 
 The code must be syntactically correct, but not semantically
 correct. -Walter


This is not good enough - what about commenting out functions?  Global 
declarations?

Aug 16 2001

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Matt Busigin" <mbusigin helios.spang.org.uk> wrote in message
news:3B7C4B0D.1040504 helios.spang.org.uk...
 Walter wrote:
 To comment out a large block of code:

     if (0)
     {
         ... block of code ...
     }

 The code must be syntactically correct, but not semantically
 correct. -Walter


 This is not good enough - what about commenting out functions?  Global
 declarations?


To comment out a function, you can wrap its entire code body with if(0){}.
The function will still be there, but there'll be no code in it. Otherwise,
you can use the debug attribute to get rid of blocks of declarations.

Aug 16 2001

"Angus Graham" <agraham_d agraham.ca> writes:

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:9lhng3
 To comment out a function, you can wrap its entire code body with if(0){}.
 The function will still be there, but there'll be no code in it.


 you can use the debug attribute to get rid of blocks of declarations.


So to comment out a section of code I would have to change three lines in
every function.  That sucks!

I don't understand - a decent editor colours comments so there's no question
of which parts are commented out.

I'm totally naive when it comes to compiler implementation, but I can't
imagine how nested comments would complicate things on the implementation
side.

So why not allow them?


Angus Graham

Aug 16 2001

"Kent Sandvik" <sandvik excitehome.net> writes:

"Angus Graham" <agraham_d agraham.ca> wrote in message
news:9lhphi$bts$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 I'm totally naive when it comes to compiler implementation, but I can't
 imagine how nested comments would complicate things on the implementation
 side.


I've always had problems with nested comments, the 'if 0' trick works just
fine, lack of nested comments would not be a big minus for me when shopping
for a good language. --Kent

Aug 16 2001

Erik Rounds <erikr aatrix.com> writes:

is there any reason why comments should not be able to be nested?  As long as
the number of /* match the number of */ I don't see any problem.  ie.

/*
    commented code 1
    /*
        commented code 2
    */
    commented code 3
*/

Why can't this be made to work?  Just increment a comment counter when a /* is
recieved and decrement it on a */.  Thanks.

Kent Sandvik wrote:

 "Angus Graham" <agraham_d agraham.ca> wrote in message
 news:9lhphi$bts$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 I'm totally naive when it comes to compiler implementation, but I can't
 imagine how nested comments would complicate things on the implementation
 side.


 I've always had problems with nested comments, the 'if 0' trick works just
 fine, lack of nested comments would not be a big minus for me when shopping
 for a good language. --Kent

Aug 22 2001

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

Making it work is easy. The trouble is that C/C++ programmers are so used to
them not nesting, it can introduce bugs that are difficult to spot.

Erik Rounds wrote in message <3B83D77C.9ABB335C aatrix.com>...
is there any reason why comments should not be able to be nested?  As long


the number of /* match the number of */ I don't see any problem.  ie.

/*
    commented code 1
    /*
        commented code 2
    */
    commented code 3
*/

Why can't this be made to work?  Just increment a comment counter when a /*


recieved and decrement it on a */.  Thanks.

Kent Sandvik wrote:

 "Angus Graham" <agraham_d agraham.ca> wrote in message
 news:9lhphi$bts$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 I'm totally naive when it comes to compiler implementation, but I can't
 imagine how nested comments would complicate things on the






 side.


 I've always had problems with nested comments, the 'if 0' trick works




 fine, lack of nested comments would not be a big minus for me when




 for a good language. --Kent

Aug 23 2001

"Rajiv Bhagwat" <dataflow vsnl.com> writes:

How about clear indication on the comment, based on the 'clipprep' style:

%a{  ,,............ %b{.............     %b} ................. %a}

Where the comments have 1 char identifier associated with them.

-- Rajiv


Walter <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:9m2bil$1unn$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 Making it work is easy. The trouble is that C/C++ programmers are so used


 them not nesting, it can introduce bugs that are difficult to spot.

 Erik Rounds wrote in message <3B83D77C.9ABB335C aatrix.com>...
is there any reason why comments should not be able to be nested?  As




 as
the number of /* match the number of */ I don't see any problem.  ie.

/*
    commented code 1
    /*
        commented code 2
    */
    commented code 3
*/

Why can't this be made to work?  Just increment a comment counter when a




 is
recieved and decrement it on a */.  Thanks.

Kent Sandvik wrote:

 "Angus Graham" <agraham_d agraham.ca> wrote in message
 news:9lhphi$bts$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 I'm totally naive when it comes to compiler implementation, but I








 imagine how nested comments would complicate things on the






 side.


 I've always had problems with nested comments, the 'if 0' trick works




 fine, lack of nested comments would not be a big minus for me when




 for a good language. --Kent

Aug 23 2001

Dan Hursh <hursh infonet.isl.net> writes:

	Is this true of most C/C++ programmers?  If I get confused about this
it is always because I assume they they do (or should) nest.  I have
never heard anyone complain about a compiler that did nest them.  I know
such compilers exist.  I just never thought this would be a huge problem
for folks to get used to.  I doubt it will be that big of a problem for
me to get used to it if they don't nest, but nesting seems more logical
to me, since you have unique open and close tokens for the comment.

Dan

Walter wrote:
 
 Making it work is easy. The trouble is that C/C++ programmers are so used to
 them not nesting, it can introduce bugs that are difficult to spot.
 
 Erik Rounds wrote in message <3B83D77C.9ABB335C aatrix.com>...
is there any reason why comments should not be able to be nested?  As long


the number of /* match the number of */ I don't see any problem.  ie.

/*
    commented code 1
    /*
        commented code 2
    */
    commented code 3
*/

Why can't this be made to work?  Just increment a comment counter when a /*


recieved and decrement it on a */.  Thanks.

Aug 23 2001

Russell Bornschlegel <kaleja estarcion.com> writes:

Dan Hursh wrote:
 
         Is this true of most C/C++ programmers?  If I get confused about this
 it is always because I assume they they do (or should) nest.  I have
 never heard anyone complain about a compiler that did nest them.  I know
 such compilers exist.  I just never thought this would be a huge problem
 for folks to get used to.  I doubt it will be that big of a problem for
 me to get used to it if they don't nest, but nesting seems more logical
 to me, since you have unique open and close tokens for the comment.


Back in the day, I believe Turbo C allowed a compiler switch to 
say whether comments nested. Nesting always seemed more logical 
and useful to me.

Since switching to C++, though, I've never even been tempted to 
nest comments.

-R

Aug 24 2001

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Angus Graham" <agraham_d agraham.ca> wrote in message
news:9lhphi$bts$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:9lhng3
 To comment out a function, you can wrap its entire code body with




 The function will still be there, but there'll be no code in it.


 you can use the debug attribute to get rid of blocks of declarations.


 So to comment out a section of code I would have to change three lines in
 every function.  That sucks!

 I don't understand - a decent editor colours comments so there's no


 of which parts are commented out.

 I'm totally naive when it comes to compiler implementation, but I can't
 imagine how nested comments would complicate things on the implementation
 side.
 So why not allow them?
 Angus Graham


The problem with nested comments is that programmers don't expect them to be
nested. BTW, there is nothing in D that prevents the C preprocessor from
being run over it if you really miss it (or any other text macro processor)!

Aug 16 2001

"Sean L. Palmer" <spalmer iname.com> writes:

Programmers these days should be using a decent code editor, with syntax
highlighting, which would show any comment nesting bug right away.  Nobody
does "copy con: myprogram.d" anymore.  ;)  Use the tools available to you.

If the D spec says they nest, then D programmers will expect them to nest;
otherwise they won't.  What you decide will *be* what they expect.  So
decide wisely.  You've broken enough C compatibility already that tossing
out a tiny bit more won't kill anyone.  If you ask me, I say to hell with
C/C++ compatibility, make the language nice for its own sake.  Otherwise you
may as well expect D to do nothing more in the market than possibly
influence the next round of ANSI/ISO C++ standards committee because it
won't be enough of an improvement to C++ to warrant switching languages.

Sean

 The problem with nested comments is that programmers don't expect them to


 nested. BTW, there is nothing in D that prevents the C preprocessor from
 being run over it if you really miss it (or any other text macro

Oct 28 2001

rogalsky <rogalsky theorie1.physik.uni-erlangen.de> writes:

Angus Graham wrote:

 I don't understand - a decent editor colours comments so there's no question
 of which parts are commented out.



-- 
                                  \\|//
                                  (. .)
+-----------------------------oOOo-(_)-oOOo----------------------------+
I Dipl. Phys. Olaf Rogalsky                 Institut f. Theo. Physik I I
I Tel.: 09131 8528440                       Univ. Erlangen-Nuernberg   I
I Fax.: 09131 8528444                       Staudtstrasse 7 B3         I
I rogalsky theorie1.physik.uni-erlangen.de  D-91058 Erlangen           I
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Aug 17 2001

"Sheldon Simms" <sheldon semanticedge.com> writes:

Im Artikel <9lhng3$a5d$1 digitaldaemon.com> schrieb "Walter"
<walter digitalmars.com>:

 "Matt Busigin" <mbusigin helios.spang.org.uk> wrote in message
 news:3B7C4B0D.1040504 helios.spang.org.uk...
 Walter wrote:
 To comment out a large block of code:

     if (0)
     {
         ... block of code ...
     }

 The code must be syntactically correct, but not semantically correct.
 -Walter


 This is not good enough - what about commenting out functions?  Global
 declarations?


 To comment out a function, you can wrap its entire code body with
 if(0){}. The function will still be there, but there'll be no code in
 it. Otherwise, you can use the debug attribute to get rid of blocks of
 declarations.


maybe there should just be an ignore block...

class ABC
{
  int this ()
  {...}

ignore {
  int a1 ()
  {...}

  int a2 ()
  {...}
}

  int b1 ()
  {...}
}

-- 
Sheldon Simms / sheldon semanticedge.com

Aug 17 2001

Christophe de Dinechin <descubes earthlink.net> writes:

Walter wrote:

 To comment out a large block of code:

     if (0)
     {
         ... block of code ...
     }

 The code must be syntactically correct, but not semantically
 correct. -Walter


As a compiler implementor, this makes me jump through the roof. In english:
WHAAAT???

Let me combine that with other language features. Since I can reference
forward declarations, I can write:

    void foo()
    {
        if (check_stuff) { ... }
    }
    void bar()
    {
        if (check_stuff) { ... }
    }

    const int check_stuff = 0; // make it 1 to enable stuff checking

See where I'm going? Now you have to defer semantics of foo and bar until the
first-level semantics of every possibly constant declaration in the file has
been processes. That's going to be ugly.

And last, what is considered a constant declaration? Let me build a corner
case:

    const int check_stuff = (int) &bar - (int) &foo > 1024;

Now, you have a recursive constant declaration, which impacts the size of the
functions, and depends on it. Good luck processing that ;-)


By the way, what if I want to disable a declaration? To remove debugging
fields in a struct?



Christophe

Aug 17 2001

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

Christophe de Dinechin wrote in message <3B7D3295.4886A523 earthlink.net>...
See where I'm going? Now you have to defer semantics of foo and bar until


first-level semantics of every possibly constant declaration in the file


been processes. That's going to be ugly.



No, it's not bad. The compiler makes multiple passes over the syntax tree to
do the semantics. That's how forward references are resolved as well.

And last, what is considered a constant declaration? Let me build a corner
case:

    const int check_stuff = (int) &bar - (int) &foo > 1024;

Now, you have a recursive constant declaration, which impacts the size of


functions, and depends on it. Good luck processing that ;-)



A constant declaration is one that the compiler can figure out at compile
time <g>.

By the way, what if I want to disable a declaration? To remove debugging
fields in a struct?



Use the debug attribute.

Aug 20 2001

D Programming

C/C++ Programming

Other

D - nesting comments?