- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 21:15:47 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1387 ------- Additional Comments From scott_boag@us.ibm.com 2005-07-09 21:15 ------- (In reply to comment #0) > A.2.3 Comments > > (whole section) > I think the content of this section should be moved/merged either to A.1.1 > grammar-note: comments, or 2.6 Comments. It appears to be just talking > about ramifications of the Comment and CommentContents productions. It > isn't specifying the lexical structure of the language. Would be OK with me, but it should be decided by Don at the upcoming F2F. > > "Comments are allowed to nest, though the content of a comment must have > balanced comment delimiters without regard to structure." > I'm not sure that "balanced delimiters without regard to structure" makes > any sense. Doesn't "balanced" induce a structure? Would "balanced delimiters > *with* regard to structure" or just "balanced delimiters" mean something > different? > > And anyway, aren't balanced delimiters guaranteed by the fact that comments > nest? In which case, "though" should be "so". <p>A comment can contain nested comments, as long as all "(:" and ":)" patterns are balanced, no matter where they occur within the outer comment.</p> > > "It is a limitation of nested comments that literal content can cause unbalanced > nesting of comments." > Comments don't have to nest to cause problems like this, they just have to > have visible delimiters (as opposed to line-end comments): if you have a > language with delimited comments, and you try to comment-out a chunk of > text, there's the possibility that the text might already contain characters > that are (or will become) a comment delimiter and screw things up. > > E.g., in C (where comments are delimited but do not nest), > "this is just a string */" > is a legal expression. But > /* "this is just a string */" */ > will cause a syntax error. Mind you, > /* "this is just a string /*" */ > isn't an error (unlike the corresponding construct in XQuery), though it'll > probably get you a warning. Sure, though I'll leave it as it stands.
Received on Saturday, 9 July 2005 21:15:49 UTC