8 Feb
2017
8 Feb
'17
6:06 p.m.
I've always wondered if this was done in honor of JCL, as sort of a riff on
the dd command. Anyone know?
ron
11:39 p.m.
I remember some discussion about this. In reality, a C comment
really requires you to type 8 characters, because putting anything
adjacent to the /* or */ looks terrible. Many languages used single
characters (e.g., # for make). The argument was "if you make
comments easier to type, you'll get more of them in the code" (viz.
the Unix kernel). I'm guessing Bjarne was aware of these
discussions, although I don't remember specifically that he was...
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: arnold(a)skeeve.com
To:<tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>, <rminnich(a)gmail.com>
Cc:
Sent:Wed, 08 Feb 2017 11:17:28 -0700
Subject:Re: [TUHS] // comment in C++
ron minnich <rminnich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I've always wondered if this was done in honor of
JCL, as sort of a
riff on
the dd command. Anyone know?
ron
I'm fairly certain it was originally in BCPL.
You could just drop a note to Bjarne Stroustrup and ask. :-)
Arnold
11:52 p.m.
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, Steve Johnson wrote:
I remember some discussion about this. In reality, a
C comment really
requires you to type 8 characters, because putting anything adjacent to
the /* or */ looks terrible. Many languages used single characters
(e.g., # for make). The argument was "if you make comments easier to
type, you'll get more of them in the code" (viz. the Unix kernel). I'm
guessing Bjarne was aware of these discussions, although I don't
remember specifically that he was...
My favourite C /* */ style is this:
/*
* foo
* bar
*/
Is that what you meant? And recent C also accepts // as a comment, which
I use like this:
/*
* This is where we do some neat stuff.
*/
foo();
weird_function(); // Yes, we need to call this here...
bar();
I'm quite taken by BIND, though, which accepts
/* this */
// this
# and this.
--
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will
suffer."
2:46 a.m.
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, Corey Lindsly wrote:
Perhaps I meant named.conf (part of BIND):
named.conf is the configuration file for named. Statements are enclosed
in braces and terminated with a semi-colon. Clauses in the statements
are also semi-colon terminated. The usual comment styles are supported:
C style: /* */
C++ style: // to end of line
Unix style: # to end of line
Where did you get
; But this?
--
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will
suffer."
I'm quite
taken by BIND, though, which accepts
/* this */
// this
# and this.
Not that.
; But this. 
2:53 a.m.
Perhaps I meant named.conf (part of BIND):
named.conf is the configuration file for named. Statements are enclosed
in braces and terminated with a semi-colon. Clauses in the statements
are also semi-colon terminated. The usual comment styles are supported:
C style: /* */
C++ style: // to end of line
Unix style: # to end of line
Where did you get
; But this?
Ah, yes, you're correct for named.conf. I was referring to the zone files.
--corey
4:38 a.m.
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org> wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, Corey Lindsly wrote:
Perhaps I meant named.conf (part of BIND):
named.conf is the configuration file for named. Statements are enclosed
in braces and terminated with a semi-colon. Clauses in the statements
are also semi-colon terminated. The usual comment styles are supported:
C style: /* */
C++ style: // to end of line
Unix style: # to end of line
Where did you get
; But this?
Old School assembler comments. This found its way into a number of
config files long after most uses of Old School assembler had moved
on...
Macro-16 is where I first encountered it, but it is much older. It is
common in DEC syntax, and some others.
Warner
I'm
quite taken by BIND, though, which accepts
/* this */
// this
# and this.
Not that.
; But this. 
2:47 a.m.
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Dave Horsfall wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, Steve Johnson wrote:
This is the way I usually write my comments, too.
I remember some discussion about this. In
reality, a C comment really
requires you to type 8 characters, because putting anything adjacent to
the /* or */ looks terrible. Many languages used single characters
(e.g., # for make). The argument was "if you make comments easier to
type, you'll get more of them in the code" (viz. the Unix kernel). I'm
guessing Bjarne was aware of these discussions, although I don't
remember specifically that he was...
My favourite C /* */ style is this:
/*
* foo
* bar
*/ Is that what you meant? And recent C also accepts //
as a comment, which
I use like this:
/*
* This is where we do some neat stuff.
*/
foo();
weird_function(); // Yes, we need to call this here...
bar();
I'm quite taken by BIND, though, which accepts
/* this */
// this
# and this.
Unrealircd likewise accepts those 3 different types of comments.
-uso.
4:55 a.m.
Well, personally I use // for almost all comments in C/C++. I
reserve /* */ for commenting out blocks of code. Since, for some
reason, /* */ doesn't nest, if I stick to this style life is good.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Nickolas" <usotsuki(a)buric.co>
To:"The Eunuchs Hysterical Society" <tuhs(a)tuhs.org>
Cc:
Sent:Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:47:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject:Re: [TUHS] // comment in C++
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Dave Horsfall wrote:
This is the way I usually write my comments, too.
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, Steve Johnson wrote:
> I remember some discussion about this. In reality, a C comment
really
> requires you to type 8 characters, because putting
anything
adjacent to
> the /* or */ looks terrible. Many languages used
single
characters
> (e.g., # for make). The argument was "if you
make comments
easier to
> type, you'll get more of them in the
code" (viz. the Unix
kernel). I'm
guessing
Bjarne was aware of these discussions, although I don't
remember specifically that he was...
My favourite C /* */ style is this:
/*
* foo
* bar
*/ Is that what you meant? And recent C also accepts //
as a comment,
which
I use like this:
/*
* This is where we do some neat stuff.
*/
foo();
weird_function(); // Yes, we need to call this here...
bar();
I'm quite taken by BIND, though, which accepts
/* this */
// this
# and this.
Unrealircd likewise accepts those 3 different types of comments.
-uso.
11:59 a.m.
On 8 Feb 2017 20:55 -0800, from scj(a)yaccman.com (Steve Johnson):
Well, personally I use // for almost all comments in
C/C++. I
reserve /* */ for commenting out blocks of code. Since, for some
reason, /* */ doesn't nest, if I stick to this style life is good.
#if 0 ... #endif also works, and nests if needed.
I didn't know that // was now accepted to begin a comment in C, but I
strongly suspect that any compiler modern enough to know about that
will know just as well about #if 0.
--
Michael Kjörling • https://michael.kjorling.se • michael(a)kjorling.se
“People who think they know everything really annoy
those of us who know we don’t.” (Bjarne Stroustrup)
9:56 p.m.
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Michael Kjörling wrote:
I didn't know that // was now accepted to begin a
comment in C, but I
strongly suspect that any compiler modern enough to know about that will
know just as well about #if 0.
// isn't in ANSI C, but I've been using it for years on quite a few
platforms (I see that even M$ supports it); I don't know where I first saw
it.
--
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will
suffer."
10 Feb
10 Feb
12:17 a.m.
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org> wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Michael Kjörling wrote:
Well, it wasn't in c89, but it's been part of ANSI C since 1999: almost 20
years!
- Dan C.
I didn't know that // was now accepted to
begin a comment in C, but I
strongly suspect that any compiler modern enough to know about that will
know just as well about #if 0.
// isn't in ANSI C, but I've been using it for years on quite a few
platforms (I see that even M$ supports it); I don't know where I first saw
it.
1:58 a.m.
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Dan Cross wrote:
Well, it wasn't in c89, but it's been part
of ANSI C since 1999: almost 20
years!
Not in my C book 2nd ed. (ANSI), it isn't...
A2.2 Comments
The characters /* introduce a comment, which terminates with the
characters */. Comments do not not nest, and they do not occur within
string or character literals.
There is no mention of "//"; I have the 51st printing, August 2013.
--
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will
suffer."
2:46 a.m.
On 9 February 2017 at 20:58, Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org> wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Dan Cross wrote:
Hhmmm... I do not have ANSI C99 (or C11) but ISO/IEC 9899:TC3 states
(in Para. 6.4.9):
Except within a character constant, a string literal, or a comment,
the characters //
introduce a comment that includes all multibyte characters up to, but
not including, the
next new-line character.
N.
Well, it wasn't in c89, but it's been
part of ANSI C since 1999: almost 20
years!
Not in my C book 2nd ed. (ANSI), it isn't...
A2.2 Comments
The characters /* introduce a comment, which terminates with the
characters */. Comments do not not nest, and they do not occur within
string or character literals.
There is no mention of "//"; I have the 51st printing, August 2013.
--
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will
suffer."
9:30 a.m.
Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org> wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Dan Cross wrote:
Sadly, although it's a recent printing, the contents date from 1989,
only covering the first standard for C. C99 is the second, and C11 is
the third.
(My first printing of the 2nd edition from 1989 has "draft ANSI" or some
such on the cover. :-)
Arnold
Well, it wasn't in c89, but it's been
part of ANSI C since 1999: almost 20
years!
Not in my C book 2nd ed. (ANSI), it isn't...
A2.2 Comments
The characters /* introduce a comment, which terminates with the
characters */. Comments do not not nest, and they do not occur within
string or character literals.
There is no mention of "//"; I have the 51st printing, August 2013.
9:19 a.m.
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Michael Kjörling wrote:
> I didn't know that // was now accepted to begin a comment in C, but I
> strongly suspect that any compiler modern enough to know about that will
> know just as well about #if 0.
Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org> wrote:
// isn't in ANSI C, but I've been using it
for years on quite a few
platforms (I see that even M$ supports it); I don't know where I first saw
it.
It was added in C99.
Arnold
9 Feb
9 Feb
12:18 p.m.
That’s a good convention. I use the convention that the permanent comments use the
slash-splat form and the slash-slash from is used for temporary comment that will need
attention later. They are TODO comments.
I also use empty comments in the first column to note debugging stuff to remove laters.
For example:
void
main(int argc, char **argv)
{
ARGBEGIN {
default:
usage();
} ARGEND
/**/ print(“argc=%d argv=%p\n”, argc, argv);
/**/ if (argc == 3)
/**/ print(“that funny number again\n”);
if (argc == 0) {
usestdin();
…
}
This lets the flow of the test logic clear yet is easy to find and remove the code later.
I also use “#ifdef notdef” to comment out blocks of code. Have done since v7 days. Once I
worked with a guy who saw the ifdefs and wondered what the function was that was def’ed
out. He added -Dnotdef and all hell broke out!
Brantley
On Feb 8, 2017, at 11:55 PM, Steve Johnson
<scj(a)yaccman.com> wrote:
Well, personally I use // for almost all comments in C/C++. I reserve /* */ for
commenting out blocks of code. Since, for some reason, /* */ doesn't nest, if I
stick to this style life is good.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From:
"Steve Nickolas" <usotsuki(a)buric.co>
To:
"The Eunuchs Hysterical Society" <tuhs(a)tuhs.org>
Cc:
Sent:
Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:47:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject:
Re: [TUHS] // comment in C++
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Dave Horsfall wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, Steve Johnson wrote:
This is the way I usually write my comments, too.
I remember some discussion about this. In
reality, a C comment really
requires you to type 8 characters, because putting anything adjacent to
the /* or */ looks terrible. Many languages used single characters
(e.g., # for make). The argument was "if you make comments easier to
type, you'll get more of them in the code" (viz. the Unix kernel). I'm
guessing Bjarne was aware of these discussions, although I don't
remember specifically that he was...
My favourite C /* */ style is this:
/*
* foo
* bar
*/ Is that what you meant? And recent C also accepts
// as a comment, which
I use like this:
/*
* This is where we do some neat stuff.
*/
foo();
weird_function(); // Yes, we need to call this here...
bar();
I'm quite taken by BIND, though, which accepts
/* this */
// this
# and this.
Unrealircd likewise accepts those 3 different types of comments.
-uso. 
1:31 p.m.
Haha well I never liked that idiom but I recently found out that
#ifdef was present in the first CPPs whereas #if was much later. So
that's why #ifdef notdef is seen a lot in old code. Anyway, personally
I use #if 0 and #if 1 quite a lot for debugging or questionable stuff.
For a while, I was quite into the idea of doing compile time options
like #define SOME_OPTION 1 and then using #if SOME_OPTION, as I felt
it was nicer than #ifdef SOME_OPTION. But I've changed my mind, as
this is pretty nonstandard usage and can be misleading. It's also not
really safer than #ifdef, since for some reason CPP accepts undefined
symbols and treats them as 0 in a #if statement. Go figure.
cheers, Nick
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 11:18 PM, Brantley Coile <brantleycoile(a)me.com> wrote:
That’s a good convention. I use the convention that
the permanent comments use the slash-splat form and the slash-slash from is used for
temporary comment that will need attention later. They are TODO comments.
I also use empty comments in the first column to note debugging stuff to remove laters.
For example:
void
main(int argc, char **argv)
{
ARGBEGIN {
default:
usage();
} ARGEND
/**/ print(“argc=%d argv=%p\n”, argc, argv);
/**/ if (argc == 3)
/**/ print(“that funny number again\n”);
if (argc == 0) {
usestdin();
…
}
This lets the flow of the test logic clear yet is easy to find and remove the code
later.
I also use “#ifdef notdef” to comment out blocks of code. Have done since v7 days. Once I
worked with a guy who saw the ifdefs and wondered what the function was that was def’ed
out. He added -Dnotdef and all hell broke out!
Brantley
On Feb 8, 2017, at 11:55 PM, Steve Johnson
<scj(a)yaccman.com> wrote:
Well, personally I use // for almost all comments in C/C++. I reserve /* */ for
commenting out blocks of code. Since, for some reason, /* */ doesn't nest, if I
stick to this style life is good.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From:
"Steve Nickolas" <usotsuki(a)buric.co>
To:
"The Eunuchs Hysterical Society" <tuhs(a)tuhs.org>
Cc:
Sent:
Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:47:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject:
Re: [TUHS] // comment in C++
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Dave Horsfall wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, Steve Johnson wrote:
This is the way I usually write my comments, too.
I remember some discussion about this. In
reality, a C comment really
requires you to type 8 characters, because putting anything adjacent to
the /* or */ looks terrible. Many languages used single characters
(e.g., # for make). The argument was "if you make comments easier to
type, you'll get more of them in the code" (viz. the Unix kernel). I'm
guessing Bjarne was aware of these discussions, although I don't
remember specifically that he was...
My favourite C /* */ style is this:
/*
* foo
* bar
*/ Is that what you meant? And recent C also accepts
// as a comment, which
I use like this:
/*
* This is where we do some neat stuff.
*/
foo();
weird_function(); // Yes, we need to call this here...
bar();
I'm quite taken by BIND, though, which accepts
/* this */
// this
# and this.
Unrealircd likewise accepts those 3 different types of comments.
-uso. 
8 Feb
8 Feb
10:45 p.m.
On Wednesday, 8 February 2017 at 18:06:53 +0000, ron minnich wrote:
I've always wondered if this was done in honor of
JCL, as sort of a riff on
the dd command. Anyone know?
// had a very different meaning in IBM JCL. It's a sequence
indicating that a command follows, and I have a suspicion that it's
related to a prompt. In JCL (on punched cards) you had to punch it
with the rest, but interactive programs printed it for you, usually a
single character. UNIVAC OS/1100 used @, and OMEGA used #, for
example.
Does anybody else have input?
Greg
--
Sent from my desktop computer.
Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft mail program
reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA
10:50 p.m.
Amusingly in the UNIVAC FIELDDATA character set. The @ had the value zero
(and was called the master space).
It's sort of like making NUL the command character :)
Amusingly UNIVAC had their own punched card format (same size card, which
was by the way, the size of a dollar bill in Hollerith's day) but used two
banks of 45 round holes for 90 columns.
-Ron "I had a cat named @FURPUR" Natalie
11:22 p.m.
On Wednesday, 8 February 2017 at 17:50:57 -0500, Ron Natalie wrote:
Amusingly in the UNIVAC FIELDDATA character set. The
@ had the value zero
(and was called the master space).
It's sort of like making NUL the command character :)
Well, except that there were no non-printing characters in Fieldata.
Amusingly UNIVAC had their own punched card format
(same size card,
which was by the way, the size of a dollar bill in Hollerith's day)
but used two banks of 45 round holes for 90 columns.
Yes, I heard of them, but they didn't seem to be a commercial success.
I worked with UNIVAC kit from 1973 to 1977, on the 1108/1106 and the
494, but I never saw any card like that. They also had a very nice
card punch, the VIP, that buffered a card content and only punched
when you released the card, thus enabling erasures. But it used
standard IBM format cards.
-Ron "I had a cat named @FURPUR" Natalie
:-)
Greg
--
Sent from my desktop computer.
Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft mail program
reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA
9 Feb
9 Feb
12:12 p.m.
On 8 Feb 2017 17:50 -0500, from ron(a)ronnatalie.com (Ron Natalie):
Amusingly in the UNIVAC FIELDDATA character set. The
@ had the value zero
(and was called the master space).
That wouldn't have anything to do with how ^@ is a somewhat common
representation of 000, would it? (Yes, using octal on purpose.) I've
always kind of wondered where that notation came from.
That ^A through ^Z were representations of 001 through 032 makes more
sense.
--
Michael Kjörling • https://michael.kjorling.se • michael(a)kjorling.se
“People who think they know everything really annoy
those of us who know we don’t.” (Bjarne Stroustrup)
12:26 p.m.
Michael Kjörling <michael(a)kjorling.se> writes:
That wouldn't have anything to do with how ^@ is
a somewhat common
representation of 000, would it? (Yes, using octal on purpose.) I've
always kind of wondered where that notation came from. That ^A
through ^Z were representations of 001 through 032 makes more sense.
Look at two slices of the ASCII table:
0 ^@ 64 @
1 ^A 65 A
2 ^B 66 B
3 ^C 67 C
4 ^D 68 D
5 ^E 69 E
6 ^F 70 F
7 ^G 71 G
8 ^H 72 H
9 ^I 73 I
10 ^J 74 J
11 ^K 75 K
12 ^L 76 L
13 ^M 77 M
14 ^N 78 N
15 ^O 79 O
16 ^P 80 P
17 ^Q 81 Q
18 ^R 82 R
19 ^S 83 S
20 ^T 84 T
21 ^U 85 U
22 ^V 86 V
23 ^W 87 W
24 ^X 88 X
25 ^Y 89 Y
26 ^Z 90 Z
27 ^[ 91 [
28 ^\ 92 \
29 ^] 93 ]
30 ^^ 94 ^
31 ^_ 95 _
2:37 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017, at 07:26, Lars Brinkhoff wrote:
Michael Kjörling <michael(a)kjorling.se> writes:
And for where ^? for DEL comes from, (0377 + 0100) & 0377 == 0077 [where
the first 0377 is the control character of interest.] I am sure I've
seen code that calculates the character to be displayed in precisely
this way, but I can't remember where.
In fact, this is exactly how the control key worked on early terminals
(I recently had reason to look up an ASR-33 manual). The Shift key
toggled the 0020 bit (so shift-2 is " - if you look at the relevant
slice of an ASCII table), resulting in shift-K is [ (which did not have
a dedicated key) and shift-ctrl-K is ESC (which did have a dedicated key
as well, but the other non-letter control characters did not, and were
on shift-ctrl-LMNOP).
There was a mechanical lockout for keys that shift didn't make sense
with - all other letters and zero (which would otherwise have produced a
space), and one for ctrl (which locked out all the number and symbol
keys)
That wouldn't have anything to do with how
^@ is a somewhat common
representation of 000, would it? (Yes, using octal on purpose.) I've
always kind of wondered where that notation came from. That ^A
through ^Z were representations of 001 through 032 makes more sense.
Look at two slices of the ASCII table:
2:49 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017, at 09:37, Random832 wrote:
And for where ^? for DEL comes from,
In fact, this is exactly how the control key worked on
early terminals
I should clarify, these are two separate comments. Ctrl-? did *not*
generate DEL on physical terminals (which typically had a dedicated key
for it), from the documentation that I've read it seems those that
allowed the combination at all tended to generate ^_. Which is something
that persists in modern terminal emulators for Ctrl-/, though I think
some do support Ctrl-? as DEL.
12:31 p.m.
On 9 Feb 2017, at 13:12, Michael Kjörling
<michael(a)kjorling.se> wrote:
On 8 Feb 2017 17:50 -0500, from ron(a)ronnatalie.com (Ron Natalie):
Isn’t it because it is simply the control code + 0100 to arrive at the
capitals column of the ascii table? (http://www.asciitable.com)
Hence ^@ for NULL and ^[ for ESC.
Amusingly in the UNIVAC FIELDDATA character set.
The @ had the value zero
(and was called the master space).
That wouldn't have anything to do with how ^@ is a somewhat common
representation of 000, would it? (Yes, using octal on purpose.) I've
always kind of wondered where that notation came from.
That ^A through ^Z were representations of 001 through 032 makes more
sense. 
1:07 p.m.
Paul Ruizendaal <pnr(a)planet.nl> wrote:
|> On 9 Feb 2017, at 13:12, Michael Kjörling <michael(a)kjorling.se> wrote:
|> On 8 Feb 2017 17:50 -0500, from ron(a)ronnatalie.com (Ron Natalie):
|>> Amusingly in the UNIVAC FIELDDATA character set. The @ had the \
|>> value zero
|>> (and was called the master space).
|>
|> That wouldn't have anything to do with how ^@ is a somewhat common
|> representation of 000, would it? (Yes, using octal on purpose.) I've
|> always kind of wondered where that notation came from.
|>
|> That ^A through ^Z were representations of 001 through 032 makes more
|> sense.
|
|Isn’t it because it is simply the control code + 0100 to arrive at the
|capitals column of the ascii table? (http://www.asciitable.com)
|
|Hence ^@ for NULL and ^[ for ESC.
That is also what i thought and think. The MUA i maintain now
documents (in the next release):
‘\cX’ A mechanism that allows usage of the non-printable
(ASCII and compatible) control codes 0 to 31: to cre‐
ate the printable representation of a control code the
numeric value 64 is added, and the resulting ASCII
character set code point is then printed, e.g., BEL is
‘7 + 64 = 71 = G’. Whereas historically circumflex
notation has often been used for visualization pur‐
poses of control codes, e.g., ‘^G’, the reverse
solidus notation has been standardized: ‘\cG’. Some
control codes also have standardized (ISO 10646, ISO
C) alias representations, as shown above (e.g., ‘\a’,
‘\n’, ‘\t’): whenever such an alias exists S-nail will
use it for display purposes. The control code NUL
(‘\c@’) ends argument processing without producing
further output.
I hope this is correct.
--steffen
8 Feb
8 Feb
10:51 p.m.
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:45 PM Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com>
wrote:
// had a very different meaning in IBM JCL. It's a sequence
indicating that a command follows, and I have a suspicion that it's
related to a prompt.
oh, believe me, I typed enough JCL to know. I was always just so amused by
the dd command that when I first saw // in C++, I had to wonder. It's a
question that's been banging around in my head for several decades ...
thanks!
11:22 p.m.
On Wednesday, 8 February 2017 at 22:51:12 +0000, ron minnich wrote:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:45 PM Greg 'groggy'
Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com> wrote:
I suppose one argument might be that JCL also had a /*
Greg
--
Sent from my desktop computer.
Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft mail program
reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA
// had a very different meaning in IBM JCL.
It's a sequence
indicating that a command follows, and I have a suspicion that it's
related to a prompt.
oh, believe me, I typed enough JCL to know. I was always just so amused by
the dd command that when I first saw // in C++, I had to wonder. It's a
question that's been banging around in my head for several decades ...
2640
days inactive
2642
days old
31 comments
19 participants
participants (19)
-
A. P. Garcia -
arnold＠skeeve.com -
Brantley Coile -
corey＠lod.com -
Dan Cross -
Dave Horsfall -
Greg 'groggy' Lehey -
Lars Brinkhoff -
Michael Kjörling -
Nemo -
Nick Downing -
Paul Ruizendaal -
Random832 -
ron minnich -
Ron Natalie -
Steffen Nurpmeso -
Steve Johnson -
Steve Nickolas -
Warner Losh