Frank Heckenbach wrote:
If we are agreed on that then the only thing to discuss is whether, having selected the nested/non-nested formats, the appearance of an open-comment marker in a comment should trigger a warning. It is certainly not an error. I consider the warning should always appear, but others may differ. I would call this warn on possible unclosed comments.
I think a warning could be useful, but not always on, i.e. another option. I wouldn't mind if it's on by default. Maybe even in standard modes (though this construct is standard-compliant, we do warn about other standard-compliant constructs, such as unused variables.)
There is one tricky point, though. Consider:
(* (*)
This is a valid comment, contaning ` ('. However `(*' *looks* like a nested comment-opener. Generally this should be warned for, but not here, because the `*' is (must be!) actually part of the `*)'.
I hope I'll manage to explain this to our lexer ... (-; but I think so -- in the end it's all regex, just a little more complex).
Frank