David Brown wrote:

> Why would you want your C code to look like Python? That's as silly as
> wanting your Python code to look like C code. The languages are
> significantly different - each with their strengths and weaknesses, and
> each suitable for quite different kinds of programming tasks.

Wrong. C is the only general-purpose language worth using for anything.

--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to Hawk│/blu.mɛin.dʰak/│he/him/his/himself/Mr.
blue-maned_hawk.srht.site
You miss all the shoes you don't take!

On 3/21/24 15:23, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> writes:
> [...]
>> And sometimes, when it's not a really a comment, but rather a block of
>> code I don't want right now:
>>
>> #ifdef 0
>> ...
>> #endif
>
> I think you mean "#if 0".

I'm sure he did. However, I'd like to mention that I have occasionally
used #ifdef with a macro name that I haven't #defined, and have no plans
to #define, but which describes the reason why I'm commenting this
section out. This is purely to document my reason, but should I ever
change my mind, I can simply #define the corresponding macro.

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> On 3/21/24 15:23, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> writes:
>> [...]
>>> And sometimes, when it's not a really a comment, but rather a block of
>>> code I don't want right now:
>>>
>>> #ifdef 0
>>> ...
>>> #endif
>>
>> I think you mean "#if 0".
>
> I'm sure he did. However, I'd like to mention that I have occasionally
> used #ifdef with a macro name that I haven't #defined, and have no plans
> to #define, but which describes the reason why I'm commenting this
> section out. This is purely to document my reason, but should I ever
> change my mind, I can simply #define the corresponding macro.

Just to be clear, the problem with "#ifdef 0" is that 0 is not an
identifier.

main.c:1:8: error: macro names must be identifiers
1 | #ifdef 0
| ^

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

On 21/03/2024 06:19, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> The original comment delimiters in C were copied from PL/I: everything
> between “/*” and “*/” is a comment, even extending across multiple lines.
> Pascal had something similar, only the delimiters were “{” and “}”, or
> “(*” and “*)” for compatibility with machines with restricted character
> sets.
>
> For some reason, the Ada folks decided block comments were not a good
> idea, and so their rule was that anything after “--” up to the end of the
> line was a comment. And C++ adopted a similar rule, using “//” as their
> to-end-of-line comment marker, though of course they also kept C-style
> block comments. Java also keeps both these styles.
>
> Since then, I’ve seen newer programmers gravitate towards the rest-of-line
> form in preference to the block form, and I’m not sure why. I’m fond of
> writing things like
>
> /*
> A very simple HTML/XML entity-escape function--why isn’t this
> part of the standard Java API?
> */
>
> which involve less typing than
>
> //
> // A very simple HTML/XML entity-escape function--why isn’t this
> // part of the standard Java API?
> //
>
> Also, the “block” form allows “interspersed” comments, where a short
> comment can be put in the middle of a line and followed by more program
> text in the rest of the line. For example, as a way of keeping long
> argument lists straight:
>
> gdImageCopyResampled
> (
> /*dst =*/ ResizedFrame,
> /*src =*/ Context.StillFrame,
> /*dstX =*/ 0,
> /*dstY =*/ 0,
> /*srcX =*/ 0,
> /*srcY =*/ 0,
> /*dstW =*/ ResizedFrame->sx,
> /*dstH =*/ ResizedFrame->sy,
> /*srcW =*/ Context.StillFrame->sx,
> /*srcH =*/ Context.StillFrame->sy
> );
>
> Do you feel the same?

I don't have strong views about this. Block comments occasionally used
to fail to match up, but with modern syntax highlighting, that is less
of an issue. It's also slightly more natural to use // comments when
commenting every line of a structure. The, as yiu say, if you want
comments interspersed with code in the same it, it must be the old
style, but it's very rare for that to be useful.

However until recently it wasn't unknown for the // comments to break.
So you couldn't use them in serious, portable C programming. I think
that's no longer the case.
--
Check out Basic Algorithms and my other books:
https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bgy1mm

In article <86edc2l7lw.fsf@linuxsc.com>,
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>
>> In article <86r0g3liii.fsf@linuxsc.com>,
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> The original comment delimiters in C were copied from PL/I: everything
>>>>
>>>> Cite?
>>>
>>> Seen in the B language manual:
>>>
>>> Comments are delimited as in PL/I by /* and */.
>>>
>>> https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/kbman.html
>>>
>>> Note that this style of commenting was not present in
>>> B's precursor language, BCPL.
>>
>> It would be appropriate to qualify this statement with some kind
>> of timeframe as BCPL is still used (albeit not widely, I assume).
>
>The PL/I style of commenting was not present in BCPL at the time B
>was being defined.

Correct.

- Dan C.

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 12:20:16 -0400, James Kuyper wrote:

> ... I have occasionally
> used #ifdef with a macro name that I haven't #defined, and have no plans
> to #define, but which describes the reason why I'm commenting this
> section out.

I’ve seen that. E.g.

#ifdef USE_STUPID_CODE
.... do things one way ...
#else
.... do things the better way ...
#endif

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:02:47 +0100, David Brown wrote:

> On 21/03/2024 22:16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 13:37:57 +0200, Mikko wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-03-21 06:19:13 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro said:
>>>
>>>> gdImageCopyResampled
>>>> (
>>>> /*dst =*/ ResizedFrame,
>>>> /*src =*/ Context.StillFrame, /*dstX =*/ 0,
>>>> /*dstY =*/ 0,
>>>> /*srcX =*/ 0,
>>>> /*srcY =*/ 0,
>>>> /*dstW =*/ ResizedFrame->sx, /*dstH =*/ ResizedFrame->sy,
>>>> /*srcW =*/ Context.StillFrame->sx,
>>>> /*srcH =*/ Context.StillFrame->sy
>>>> );
>>>
>>> I prefer to put the argument names at the end of the line.
>>
>> But putting them in front of the values looks more like the syntax in
>> languages (like Ada and Python) that do allow specification of argument
>> keywords.
>
>> And maybe, in future, if it becomes valid in C (or some successor),
>> then updating the code should be as simple as removing the comment
>> symbols.
>>
> Why would you want your C code to look like Python?

Is “Python” some kind of trigger word with you? Soon as you see that, a
switch clicks off in your brain, and you are incapable of focussing on
anything else that was said?

On 3/22/2024 7:58 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:02:47 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>
>> On 21/03/2024 22:16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 13:37:57 +0200, Mikko wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-03-21 06:19:13 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro said:
[...]
>> Why would you want your C code to look like Python?
>
> Is “Python” some kind of trigger word with you? Soon as you see that, a
> switch clicks off in your brain, and you are incapable of focussing on
> anything else that was said?

Notice the name of the group?

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:15:45 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> On 3/22/2024 7:58 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:02:47 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/03/2024 22:16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 13:37:57 +0200, Mikko wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-03-21 06:19:13 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro said:
>>>>
>>>>> gdImageCopyResampled
>>>>> (
>>>>> /*dst =*/ ResizedFrame,
>>>>> /*src =*/ Context.StillFrame, /*dstX =*/ 0,
>>>>> /*dstY =*/ 0,
>>>>> /*srcX =*/ 0,
>>>>> /*srcY =*/ 0,
>>>>> /*dstW =*/ ResizedFrame->sx, /*dstH =*/ ResizedFrame->sy,
>>>>> /*srcW =*/ Context.StillFrame->sx,
>>>>> /*srcH =*/ Context.StillFrame->sy
>>>>> );
>>>>
>>> Why would you want your C code to look like Python?
>>
>> Is “Python” some kind of trigger word with you? Soon as you see that, a
>> switch clicks off in your brain, and you are incapable of focussing on
>> anything else that was said?
>
> Notice the name of the group?

Notice the code I posted?

On 23/03/2024 03:58, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:02:47 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>
>> On 21/03/2024 22:16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 13:37:57 +0200, Mikko wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-03-21 06:19:13 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro said:
>>>>
>>>>> gdImageCopyResampled
>>>>> (
>>>>> /*dst =*/ ResizedFrame,
>>>>> /*src =*/ Context.StillFrame, /*dstX =*/ 0,
>>>>> /*dstY =*/ 0,
>>>>> /*srcX =*/ 0,
>>>>> /*srcY =*/ 0,
>>>>> /*dstW =*/ ResizedFrame->sx, /*dstH =*/ ResizedFrame->sy,
>>>>> /*srcW =*/ Context.StillFrame->sx,
>>>>> /*srcH =*/ Context.StillFrame->sy
>>>>> );
>>>>
>>>> I prefer to put the argument names at the end of the line.
>>>
>>> But putting them in front of the values looks more like the syntax in
>>> languages (like Ada and Python) that do allow specification of argument
>>> keywords.
>>
>>> And maybe, in future, if it becomes valid in C (or some successor),
>>> then updating the code should be as simple as removing the comment
>>> symbols.
>>>
>> Why would you want your C code to look like Python?
>
> Is “Python” some kind of trigger word with you? Soon as you see that, a
> switch clicks off in your brain, and you are incapable of focussing on
> anything else that was said?

No, I am quite happy with Python, and use it regularly. It is simply
that Python and C are very different languages, and I see no benefit in
trying to make one look like the other. (And I talked more about Python
than Ada because my knowledge of Ada is a lot more limited compared to
my knowledge and experience with Python - and I expect that pattern is
common amongst other people in c.l.c.)

On 23/03/2024 15:24, David Brown wrote:
> On 23/03/2024 03:58, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:02:47 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/03/2024 22:16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 13:37:57 +0200, Mikko wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-03-21 06:19:13 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>       gdImageCopyResampled
>>>>>>         (
>>>>>>           /*dst =*/ ResizedFrame,
>>>>>>           /*src =*/ Context.StillFrame, /*dstX =*/ 0,
>>>>>>           /*dstY =*/ 0,
>>>>>>           /*srcX =*/ 0,
>>>>>>           /*srcY =*/ 0,
>>>>>>           /*dstW =*/ ResizedFrame->sx, /*dstH =*/ ResizedFrame->sy,
>>>>>>           /*srcW =*/ Context.StillFrame->sx,
>>>>>>           /*srcH =*/ Context.StillFrame->sy
>>>>>>         );
>>>>>
>>>>> I prefer to put the argument names at the end of the line.
>>>>
>>>> But putting them in front of the values looks more like the syntax in
>>>> languages (like Ada and Python) that do allow specification of argument
>>>> keywords.
>>>
>>>> And maybe, in future, if it becomes valid in C (or some successor),
>>>> then updating the code should be as simple as removing the comment
>>>> symbols.
>>>>
>>> Why would you want your C code to look like Python?
>>
>> Is “Python” some kind of trigger word with you? Soon as you see that, a
>> switch clicks off in your brain, and you are incapable of focussing on
>> anything else that was said?
>
> No, I am quite happy with Python, and use it regularly.  It is simply
> that Python and C are very different languages, and I see no benefit in
> trying to make one look like the other.  (And I talked more about Python
> than Ada because my knowledge of Ada is a lot more limited compared to
> my knowledge and experience with Python - and I expect that pattern is
> common amongst other people in c.l.c.)
>
But a block in Python is either exactly or to all intents and purposes
the same thing as a block in C or many other programming languages. And
we already have perfectly good syntax for that. So why mess about?
Similarly comments are exactly the same in every programming language,
though to be fair C is a bit of an outlier and hashes are more conventional.
--
Check out Basic Algorithms and my other books:
https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bgy1mm

On 3/21/2024 2:19 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> I’m fond of writing things like
>
> /*
> A very simple HTML/XML entity-escape function--why isn’t this
> part of the standard Java API?
> */
>
> which involve less typing than
>
> //
> // A very simple HTML/XML entity-escape function--why isn’t this
> // part of the standard Java API?
> //

Get yourself some Notepad++.

Highlight a block of comments and hit Ctrl + Q.

On 2024-03-21, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> Also, the “block” form allows “interspersed” comments, where a short
> comment can be put in the middle of a line and followed by more program
> text in the rest of the line. For example, as a way of keeping long
> argument lists straight:
>
> gdImageCopyResampled
> (
> /*dst =*/ ResizedFrame,
> /*src =*/ Context.StillFrame,
> /*dstX =*/ 0,
> /*dstY =*/ 0,
> /*srcX =*/ 0,
> /*srcY =*/ 0,
> /*dstW =*/ ResizedFrame->sx,
> /*dstH =*/ ResizedFrame->sy,
> /*srcW =*/ Context.StillFrame->sx,
> /*srcH =*/ Context.StillFrame->sy
> );
>
> Do you feel the same?

A normal person won't compulsively comment very function argument,
but if they had to do it, here is what it might look like:

gdImageCopyResampled(ResizedFrame, // dst
Context.StillFrame, // src
0, 0, 0, 0, // {dst,src}{X,Y}
ResizedFrame->sx, // dstW
ResizedFrame->sy, // dstH
Context.StillFrame->sx, // srcW
Context.StillFrame->sy); // srcH

gdImageCopyResampled(ResizedFrame, /* dst */
Context.StillFrame, /* src */
0, 0, 0, 0, /* {dst,src}{X,Y} */
ResizedFrame->sx, /* dstW */
ResizedFrame->sy, /* dstH */
Context.StillFrame->sx, /* srcW */
Context.StillFrame->sy); /* srcH */

Using either kind of comment, it goes at the end of the line, with a
decent amount of space. The reader of the code who doesn't find
the comments helpful can easily ignore them.

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes:

> A normal person won't compulsively comment very function argument,

Well, they might if they're generating documentation from the comments.
Even then, it would usually only be a concern for API-type functions,
which means a fairly small share of a typical codebase.

The original post is kind of weird, though, in that its author's idea of
what it easy to type seems to be based on writing code out on a
typewriter. Maybe a Teletype without a C-savvy editor program.

Be well.
--
Lowell Gilbert, embedded/networking software engineer
http://be-well.ilk.org/~lowell/

Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> writes:

> Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes:
>
>> A normal person won't compulsively comment very function argument,
>
> Well, they might if they're generating documentation from the
> comments.

The discussion was about function arguments in a call. Documentation
would, presumably, be generated from comments on (formal) parameters in
a function declaration.

--
Ben.

Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:

> Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> writes:
>
>> Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes:
>>
>>> A normal person won't compulsively comment very function argument,
>>
>> Well, they might if they're generating documentation from the
>> comments.
>
> The discussion was about function arguments in a call. Documentation
> would, presumably, be generated from comments on (formal) parameters in
> a function declaration.

Fair enough. I drifted too far.

On 2024-04-23, Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> wrote:
> Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes:
>
>> A normal person won't compulsively comment very function argument,
>
> Well, they might if they're generating documentation from the comments.
> Even then, it would usually only be a concern for API-type functions,
> which means a fairly small share of a typical codebase.

I think here you're thinking more of formal parameters, rather than
argument expressions in calls.

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 16:13:34 -0400, DFS wrote:

> On 3/21/2024 2:19 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> I’m fond of writing things like
>>
>> /*
>> A very simple HTML/XML entity-escape function--why isn’t this part
>> of the standard Java API?
>> */
>>
>> which involve less typing than
>>
>> //
>> // A very simple HTML/XML entity-escape function--why isn’t this
>> // part of the standard Java API?
>> //
>
> Get yourself some Notepad++.
>
> Highlight a block of comments and hit Ctrl + Q.

Get an inferior piece of software, available only on an inferior platform,
just to turn a comment style that I like into one I don’t like?

What next: you want me to give up my car for a rickshaw, and move to a
village on top of a cliff?

DFS wrote:

> Get yourself some Notepad++.

Not everybody can afford a machine powerful enough for a fancy text editor
like that.

--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to Hawk│/blu.mɛin.dʰak/│he/him/his/himself/Mr.
blue-maned_hawk.srht.site
“You know what that means.” “No i don't.”

On 24.04.24 14:36, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>
>> Get yourself some Notepad++.
>
> Not everybody can afford a machine powerful enough for a fancy text editor
> like that.
>
>
>
BULSHIT.
I run notepad++ on a 20 year old xp pro machine, and never
had a problem.

Sjouke Burry wrote:

> On 24.04.24 14:36, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Get yourself some Notepad++.
>>
>> Not everybody can afford a machine powerful enough for a fancy text
>> editor like that.
>>
>>
>>
> BULSHIT.
> I run notepad++ on a 20 year old xp pro machine, and never had a
> problem.

I don't see how that refutes my claim instead of substantiating it.

--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to Hawk│/blu.mɛin.dʰak/│he/him/his/himself/Mr.
blue-maned_hawk.srht.site
Bribe^WLoan^WCompensation

On 4/24/2024 8:36 AM, Blue-Maned_Troll wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>
>> Get yourself some Notepad++.
>
> Not everybody can afford a machine powerful enough for a fancy text editor
> like that.

Notepad++ will run on $25 dumpster hardware.

DFS wrote:

> On 4/24/2024 8:36 AM, Blue-Maned_Troll wrote:

That's an unsubstantiated claim.

>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Get yourself some Notepad++.
>>
>> Not everybody can afford a machine powerful enough for a fancy text
>> editor like that.
>
>
> Notepad++ will run on $25 dumpster hardware.

So what? Not everybody can afford a machine that powerful.

--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to Hawk│/blu.mɛin.dʰak/│he/him/his/himself/Mr.
blue-maned_hawk.srht.site
I wish i had a brain. I also wish i had a crunch bar.

On 4/25/2024 3:10 PM, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>
>> On 4/24/2024 8:36 AM, Blue-Maned_Troll wrote:
>
> That's an unsubstantiated claim.
>
>>> DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> Get yourself some Notepad++.
>>>
>>> Not everybody can afford a machine powerful enough for a fancy text
>>> editor like that.
>>
>>
>> Notepad++ will run on $25 dumpster hardware.
>
> So what? Not everybody can afford a machine that powerful.

If one cannot afford a 25 dollar computer, well, shit...

On 4/25/2024 6:10 PM, Blue-Maned_Troll trolled again:
> DFS wrote:
>
>> On 4/24/2024 8:36 AM, Blue-Maned_Troll wrote:
>
> That's an unsubstantiated claim.

That's a fact.

>>> DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> Get yourself some Notepad++.
>>>
>>> Not everybody can afford a machine powerful enough for a fancy text
>>> editor like that.
>>
>>
>> Notepad++ will run on $25 dumpster hardware.
>
> So what? Not everybody can afford a machine that powerful.

Not the crowd you run with anyway.