On 6/20/06, Russell Bateman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
it seemed to me that it was in the C++ part of the document.
c99 standard does not have any "C++ part"
I am
certain of the "strict ANSI compliance" thing because I demonstrated it
to myself once when it was important to be strictly ANSI compliant in
Both c99 and c89 are ANSI C standards, but they are different.
Are you confusing "ANSI C" with "c89 ANSI C" ? If so, then
"c89 ANSI standard" indeed does not have //. "c99 ANSI C standard"
does have //. Additional references:
(2) 'gcc -std=c99 -pedantic' accepts //-comments just fine.
(3) This page refers to '//' as "c99 feature implemented in gcc':
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.4/c99status.html
Yakov
Yakov Lerner wrote:
> On 6/20/06, Russell Bateman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Formally speaking, C99 (ISO/IEC 9899:1999) still refers to "ANSI C"
>> which does not tolerate the C++ style comment operator.
>
> In the draft standard c99 (*1), 6.4.9.2, page 66, // is
> defined as a comment.
>
> Is this something that was changed/removed
> from the final standard ?
>
> Yakov
>
> (*1) http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n1124.pdf
>
>> Yakov Lerner wrote:
>> > Some C sources that I have are c99, other are c89.
>> >
>> > The c99 sources can use //-style comments.
>> > The c89 sources can use only /**/-style comments.
>> >
>> > I'd like to have my "commentify" macro to
>> > use // in c99 sources, and /**/ in c89 sources.
>> >
>> > But how to tell those two types apart ? Any ideas ?
>> > I'm thinking about searching the file for pre-existing //.
>> > That's crude but I can't think of anything else.
>> > What would be good method to detect c99 vs c89 ?
>> >
>> > Yakov
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
