Anonymous user
Talk:Comments: Difference between revisions
→task wording clarification: added a new talk section.
(→Lisp: Interpreter line: reply) |
(→task wording clarification: added a new talk section.) |
||
Line 58:
What's with the ??? for the interpreter line? --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 21:21, 10 December 2007 (MST)
:I've never seen some of those types of comments in generic Lisp programs, so I think the specific interpreter should be mentioned (or the text moved to [[Common Lisp]] if appropriate). --[[User:IanOsgood|IanOsgood]] 08:19, 11 December 2007 (MST)
==task wording clarification==
I wish (before this was promoted to a task) that the phrase <big> ··· ''that's <u>completely</u> ignored'' ··· </big> was changed to something along the lines of: ''that's largely ignored''. (The underscoring was added my me.) Of course, ''largely'' would then probably have to be defined in some manner.
Some interpreters fall into the category of ''not'' completely ignoring comments. The '''REXX''' computer programming language, for instance, ignores comments in the usual sense in that it doesn't execute them, but REXX doesn't ignore them completely. The comments are still there and can be displayed as part of the statement when tracing (via the '''trace''' statement or options), and also for the '''sourceline''' BIF, where the complete source line (including comments, or in the case of no REXX statement, ''only'' comments) can be retrieved (and then, for instance, displayed and/or examined. There must be other computer programming languages that don't ''completely'' ignore comments, especially/probably those that support interactive debugging. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 00:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
| |||