From:	dontmailme AT iname DOT com (Steamer)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: C?
Date:	Fri, 04 Aug 2000 14:26:47 GMT
Organization:	always disorganized
Lines:	28
Message-ID:	<398ad28b.23440034@news.freeserve.net>
References:	<Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 21 DOT 0008041842430 DOT 1376-100000 AT roadrunner DOT grendel DOT net>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	modem-197.virginia.dialup.pol.co.uk
X-Trace:	news7.svr.pol.co.uk 965399207 16324 62.137.97.197 (4 Aug 2000 14:26:47 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	4 Aug 2000 14:26:47 GMT
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT theplanet DOT net
X-Newsreader:	Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel wrote:

> > > As // is not a C feature, it is strictly a C++ feature.
> > 
> > This is no longer true.
> 
> Well you are correct according to the latest C spec, but still I don't
> find many (none) of the // in any of the GNU C based packages that I have
> browsed.

I'm not surprised - GNU code is usually intended to be portable.
Some of it is even supposed to work with K&R C compilers.

> Also if you want your C code to be portable between different
> compilers, I think  as far as C code is concerned it would be wise to
> avoid //.

That's right, and the same is true of everything else that is new in C99.
(But `inline' is nice, and you can put it in a macro to avoid portability
problems.)
 
> I personally think that as vs the //, the /* */ leads to much more
> aesthatically appealing code.

That's probably true.  // is OK in small quantities, but in bulk it tends
to look a mess.

S.

- Raw text -