Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 13:13:22 +1000 From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Style(9): Allow // comments Message-ID: <20220727031322.GG52252@eureka.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfq_R43mtwWt7KGceyby0ipUp8%2BtjM2ZE6St1zievtb2UQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CANCZdfq_R43mtwWt7KGceyby0ipUp8%2BtjM2ZE6St1zievtb2UQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--9sSKoi6Rw660DLir Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday, 26 July 2022 at 15:03:34 -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > So, is it time to allow C++ comments? I think so. > > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D35960 > > Comments about how I said it? In the review. > Comments on whether or not we should do it? Reply here. My question would be: why do it? Then we have two different comment styles, and there's no obvious (to me) reason why we need that. There's a lot of stuff in style(9) that prohibits perfectly acceptable styles, like the myriad brace conventions. Why not allow them too? Sooner or later, style(9) might become irrelevant. In addition, do all editors DTRT with // comments? Allowing them might confuse them. What would bde have said? Greg -- Sent from my desktop computer. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft mail program reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA.php --9sSKoi6Rw660DLir Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEARECAAYFAmLgrVIACgkQIubykFB6QiNzfwCffUDh1UbMLaYJvx3DLfKKgEix QbkAoK/wQ8Ew6JNKj7AwpN1AlGNqBQ1+ =OX9V -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --9sSKoi6Rw660DLir--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20220727031322.GG52252>