Hi!
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 03:36:35PM +0200, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
> Eike Lange wrote:
> > While discussing about different Pascal-styles for
> > the pindent-program there came up a question my books
> > can't answer:
> > array [1..3] <===> array (.1..3.)
> > { comment } <===> (* Comment *)
> The standard calls the latter "lexical alternatives".
> BTW, another alternative is `@' for `^' (really!)... :-/
Ok, we are going to support this, too ;-)
> With the comment delimiters, there seem to be different opinions.
> I personally prefer `{ }' (analogous to `[ ]'), but Peter prefers
> `(* *)' so that comments are more visible.
We are going to support a switch to support both variants.
Later, we will ask you for a set of suggestions for our
switch --gpc-team or something like that. :-)
> Oh yeah, another thing to complicate the issue: To indicate
> "FIXME"s, we're currently using two or more (depending on the
> urgency) `@'s in a comment -- then, of course, always `(* *)'
> comments because they obviously require special attention. So, e.g.:
> (*@@ This procedure is a temporary kludge. It will disappear when
> foobar has been done correctly. *)
> procedure foobar_kludge;
> This comment should, of course, not be converted to `{@@ }', even if
> it's before a declaration, but for a program it's also not hard to
> recognize the `@'...
Well, some tools for C/C++/Java support "Doc-Comments"
(KDoc, Doc++, JavaDoc, ...)
They are bild like this
/**
This is a Doc-Comment
*/
and the char '@' indicates a command like
/**
This is a command for KDoc
@author someone, someone(a)somewhere.in.universe
*/
We would like to write a pdoc after pindent and also want to
support some "@"-commands like:
(**
This might be a pdoc-comment some time
@author me, me(a)somewhere.in.universe
*)
Do these commands conflict with you comments for "FIXME"s ?
Eike