On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a...@a.a> wrote: > "Bill Baxter" <wbax...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:mailman.1179.1240349493.22690.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Paul D. Anderson >> <paul.d.removethis.ander...@comcast.andthis.net> wrote: >>> Nick Sabalausky Wrote: >>> >>>> "BCS" <a...@pathlink.com> wrote in message >>>> news:78ccfa2d3e7918cb909fe7a39...@news.digitalmars.com... >>>> > Reply to Denis, >>>> > >>>> >>> I'd be fine depricating /**/. >>>> >>> >>>> >> You mean, deprecating /++/? >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > No, I mean exactly what I said. >>>> > /**/ has well defined semantics, changing it will cause problems that >>>> > replacing it will not. >>>> > >>>> >>>> Are there any problems you see with it other than porting code to D? >>>> (FWIW, >>>> I've never come across any code that had a /* in between a /* and */.) >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I've seen lots of code that did that. >>> >>> Now, if you mean code that intentionally did that... >> >> I could see (and maybe have seen?) people using it in comments: >> >> /******/ >> /* big >> /* long >> /* comment >> /* box >> /*******/ >> >> --bb > > Yea, but something like that would be trivial to notice and fix. > > And come to think of it, even if it was commented-code instead of a doc > block: > > regular code > /* > commented code > /* > more commented code > */ > regular code that becomes accidentially commented > > That would still be easily detectable because, assuming the original code > was compiling in the original language (which would almost certainly be the > case if you're actually bothering to port it), then there wouldn't be enough > matching '*/'s and the rest of the file would be commented out. And that's > something that I really can't imagine would ever cause a > successfully-compiling logic error. What you'd get, if not a "block comment > never closed" error, would be an error from a {}, (), or [] never being > closed, or a symbol not defined error. If none of those errors occurr, then > whatever had been accidentially-commented would have already been dead code > to begin with.
I agree that if Walter had chosen to just make /* */ nestable originally it would have been a fine choice. But now that D has had /+ +/ for ten years or so, I don't see much point in changing it. It will only break everyone's code for what is a miniscule benefit at best, and a miniscule detriment at worst, depending on who you ask. --bb