Anonymous user
Talk:Comments: Difference between revisions
m
→task wording clarification: added a comment.
m (→task wording clarification: added a comment.) |
|||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 41:
::BTW, thanks for the detailed references, Ce! Perhaps Rosetta Code should be more like Wikipedia and encourage references on the pages themselves. It might avoid this kind of argument in the future. --[[User:IanOsgood|IanOsgood]] 10:58, 30 September 2007 (MDT)
:::Any reference should be linked. As long as it's relevant to the project, language or code used. Even though we provide a lot of code in Rosetta Code, sometimes this isn't enough. I don't see why we shouldn't allow anyone to read more on a given subject. This is of course true for this issue, but it also is for any other. --[[User:
== [[Python]]: move docstrings to its own task ==
Python docstrings are not comments and are not ignored by the compiler/interpreter. Strings in the source are also not ignored - they are probably crated and destroyed at runtime, and are not the way to comment code.
We can add the Pythonic way to comment code:
<pre>
if 0:
print 'this line is commented out'
print 'so is this line'
</pre>
==Lisp: Interpreter line==
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)
: Sure - any language with a sufficiently large toolset tends to acquire some tools which introspect into comments. Comments are a convenient mechanism for ad hoc additions without syntax changes (which would require changing all the other tools - a slow process).
: Also, textual data types can be used as comments, which can further blur these lines.
: Anyways, you do have rights as an rosettacode editor to fix the wording. Just make sure the task and its description stays focussed on the task (and reasonably concise). --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 04:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
:: I thought that once a Rosetta Code draft task gets promoted to a (full) task, the essential wording of the task is to remain largely intact. Changing the word '''completely''' to '''largely''' would be a big step, and I would think the original author (might) want to possible change it (or add a modifier to the task's wording). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 05:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
| |||