From nobody Thu Jul 28 15:03:49 2022 X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Ltv74238nz4X0R0 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:04:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Ltv731T0Xz45g1 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:03:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id 26SF3nut007065; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 08:03:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd-rwg@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 26SF3nmN007064; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 08:03:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <202207281503.26SF3nmN007064@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: Style(9): Allow // comments In-Reply-To: To: Warner Losh Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 08:03:49 -0700 (PDT) CC: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-arch List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4Ltv731T0Xz45g1 X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net has no SPF policy when checking 69.59.192.140) smtp.mailfrom=freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.10 / 15.00]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-0.999]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-0.999]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:13868, ipnet:69.59.192.0/19, country:US]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[dnsmgr.net]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N > 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. I am fence posted on this one, Like Grog I see no great reason or "benifit" that doing this adds to the code, it may infact distract some from the very consistent nature of the BSD code. However in defence of // I do see that len("// ") vs len("/* */") to be of benifit on end of line comments. Given the contraints in the review I am in favor of allowing //. > Warner -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org