| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Chris Moseley writes:
> But regardless, please don't mix meta types. Either use positional
> notation, or tags, but don't have both. The idea of a tag language with
> COBOL style comments is not a happy one in my mind.
I don't quite grok. By COBOL-style comments do you mean something in
column 1 affecting the rest of the line? And if so, why do you feel it
is bad to mix that with paired (open/close) constructs? Take C++ for
example -- it offers two types of comments:
/* foo */
and
// foo
The rest of C++ aside, this is a Very Good Thing. Either alone is
"propositionally complete" (to borrow a term from logic) but neither alone
is sufficient to write comments smoothly and effortlessly if you want to
retain sanity while writing code. Both have their uses and should be mixed
freely in code. Simply use the most appropriate one in each case (or in
each class of cases).
Perl is broken because it only offers
# foo
(which is equivalent to C++'s //foo) but then, there are other sneaky ways
to get around this limitation in Perl. :-)
HTML offers only
<!-- foo -->
which is fine for most uses, but it's broken in advanced uses because HTML
comments aren't nestable.
Anyway, I think that mixing meta styles is perfectly fine anywhere that it
helps write things more clearly in the target syntax. Don't you? It's no
good to shoot a priori for mixing meta styles, but if, in the interest of
writing things sanely, meta styles should just happen to mix/clash, how is
that bad?
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
31 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
