Re: 5.2 and 5.1

[Hisham <h@...>]

On 10 April 2013 21:05, Elias Barrionovo <elias.tandel@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Roberto Ierusalimschy
> <roberto@inf.puc-rio.br> wrote:
>> The above examples are clearly artificial
>
> You'd think so, but you'd be wrong:
> https://www.google.com/search?q=c%2B%2B+style+comments+bug

That's not what he meant. The artificial example he was referring to
is code that happened to contain a string that parses as a C++ style
comment inside C89 code (and therere was not interpreted as a C++
style comment), which breaks when compiled as C99 due to the
introduction of the feature. The examples that come up in that search
are all from people complaining that C99 code does not compile as C89
(ie, the other way around).

-- Hisham
http://hisham.hm/