From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2cd0b8b65b7d84fb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kwsodema@avistainc.com (Kenneth W. Sodemann)
Subject: Re: Ada's Assembly Language Comments
Date: 1997/07/08
Message-ID: <33c27bfe.7311828@news.mhtc.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 255548162
References: <y8xisHAeZ5uzYwIm@clanchy.demon.co.uk>
 <33bbbea9.8325807@news.mhtc.net> <5pi9tj$pvj$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
Organization: MPI-MHTC Internet
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-07-08T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


On 4 Jul 1997 17:49:07 +1000, ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (Richard A.
O'Keefe) wrote:

>kwsodema@avistainc.com (Kenneth W. Sodemann) writes:
>>Why did the folks who defined Ada only define the one style of
>>commenting?  I cannot say, but I can speculate based on why, at the
>>company I work for, our C and C++ coding standards all but outlaw the
>>old /* .. */ comment style.
>
>Your C coding standard had better _not_ outlaw the old /* ... */ comment
>style, because that is the ONLY comment style in C.

Right, I should have said our "C++ coding standard".  My mistake.
Sorry about any confusion.  (It has been so long since we have
actually done anything here in straight C, thank God!! :) )

>(C9X may adopt the
>// comments from C++, but the public comment draft of C9X is not yet
>with us, let alone C9X compilers.)

That would be a nice improvement to the language.

--
Kenneth W. Sodemann
kwsodema@avistainc.com
http://www.avistainc.com
Speaking for myself, _not_ AVISTA Inc.