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: 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.