Talk:Comments: Difference between revisions
Sure... but why not just fix the grammar?
(→task wording clarification: added a new talk section.) |
(Sure... but why not just fix the grammar?) |
||
Line 64:
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). --
| |||