3 ms·
You seem to think that the choice is acceptable because "it works fine in Emacs". Language design decisions should not be based on the choice of editor. Inde
by SeanLuke 2y ago
You seem to think that the choice is acceptable because "it works fine in Emacs". Language design decisions should not be based on the choice of editor. Indeed Google's own examples are not syntax-highlighted. And offsets won't do the job either: Google also recommends that lines not be longer than 100 characters, which makes it rather hard to guarantee that inline comments be offset by very much.
- ragall 2y agoYou must be reading code on punch cards.
- reikonomusha 2y agoA single-semicolon comment is intended to be very terse and to-the-point. Longer inline comments are supposed to be double-semicolon dedicated to their own lines. (let* ((head (cons nil nil)) (tail head)) ;; This is a longer expository comment on the following ;; segment of code. Here, we efficiently append to a list by ;; keeping track of the tail node at all times. (dotimes (i 10) ; RPLACD+SETF is an O(1) append (rplacd tail (cons i nil)) (setf tail (cdr tail))) (cdr head)) ; discard dummy cons I don't think this style of commenting is acceptable because of my editor, but just that an editor like Emacs keeps it very easy to edit, organize, and reflow them. I have no shame in saying that I use my editor as an integral part to my programming workflow. :)
- zilti 2y ago[flagged]