Ron:

While my example was a seven step program, I should have put it in terms of a 12 step program, starting with "My name is Mark and I am a sloppy programmer. It's been ten days since I last (knowingly) did sloppy code.".

Yes I do from time to time write or work with long programs, especially during development. Modularization often takes place later. Often it's a matter of inheriting code, sometimes it's wholly autonomous.

All:

I appreciate the fact that issuing a macro definition can simulate nested comments. Receiving this suggestion so quickly from multiple people just shows that SAS-L is the right place to get answers to "how to" questions - in this case "how to get around a SAS deficiency".

I had neglected that technique - which I now recall actually using in the past - when I posted my note. I was more focused on how to remove the deficiency rather that how to live with it.

However, I would argue that SAS can (and probably should) introduce a specific nested comment syntax, because it is more ...

... COMPLETE: It works when the NOMACRO option is in force (the %macro ... %mend techique fails). It also works for commenting PARTS of sas statements (which might have been a better context for justifying the original suggestion).

... PARSIMONIOUS: It would avoid the need for SAS macro to be called.

... INTUITIVE: And it would make it easy for new or forgetfull (like me) users to find this capabiity actually documented in "comments" section where it belongs.

However, I am also convinced this is a minority opinion.

'Nuff said and thanks for comments. Mark

> -----Original Message----- > From: SAS(r) Discussion [mailto:SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of > Fehd, Ronald J. (CDC/OCOO/ITSO) > Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 2:57 PM > To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > Subject: FW: Thoughts on nested comments? > > \begin{OpEd} > <insert tongue firmly in cheek> > > Truly: Badness Happening! > > <one of Donald Knuth's favorite tag-lines in his TeX typeseting > system; > used in place of Warning> > > Your commentary and description of how you want to use this shows an > under-developed method of writing > * modules > * routines > and > * subroutines > > One Big Program?! > > go for small bytes when programming. > Small programs -- routines and subroutines -- are easier to > * develop > * debug > * test: > * unit test > * integration test > > \end{OpEd} > > Ron Fehd the testing maven > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-sas-l@listserv.uga.edu [mailto:owner-sas- > > l@listserv.uga.edu] On Behalf Of Keintz, H. Mark > > Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 1:31 PM > > To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > > Subject: Thoughts on nested comments? > > > > Folks: > > > > This is an informal request to SAS-L for thoughts on a nested comment > > mechanism. I.e. if the next sasware ballot included an item like > > "introduce nested comments", how might the feature look in practice? > > > > > > JUSTIFICATION: > > > > AFAIK, SAS does not support nested comments. In particular a single > > "*/" cancels the effect of any number of preceding unpaired "/*" > > delimiters. > > > > I for one would appreciate the ability to nest comments. When > > developing, say, a 7-step program I may have steps 3 and 5 already > > vetted and each therefore commented out via "/* ... */". If, after > > further testing, I want to comment out steps 2 through 6, I can't > > simply insert delimiters before step 2 and after step 6. > > > > > > PROPOSAL: > > > > Add //* and *// as nested comment delimiters, such that: > > > > //* Increases the comment level by 1 > > *// Decreases the comment level by 1 > > > > > > EXAMPLE: using the 7-step program mentioned above, I start out with > > steps 3 and 5 commented with the proposed tokens. > > > > ... step 1 SAS code ... > > ... step 2 SAS code ... > > //* > > ... step 3 SAS code ... treated as a comment (level 1) > > *// > > ... step 4 SAS code ... > > //* > > ... step 5 SAS code ... treated as a comment (level 1) > > *// > > ... step 6 SAS code ... > > ... step 7 SAS code ... > > > > Subsequently I want to comment steps 2 through 6. I would add //* > > before step 2 and *// after step 6: > > > > ... step 1 SAS code ... > > //* > > ... step 2 SAS code ... treated as a comment (level 1) > > //* > > ... step 3 SAS code ... treated as a comment (level 2) > > *// > > ... step 4 SAS code ... treated as a comment (level 1) > > //* > > ... step 5 SAS code ... treated as a comment (level 2) > > *// > > ... step 6 SAS code ... treated as a comment (level 1) > > *// > > ... step 7 SAS code ... > > > > CONSIDERATIONS: > > 1. This feature should not be allowed to break the behavior of /* > and > > */. In particular all comment levels established by //* would be > > subordinate to the effect of */, which would terminate all levels. > > > > 2. I know of no usage of the token "//*" in current SAS programs, > and > > an unpaired "*//" would be treated the same as an unpaired "*/". So > > IMO these particular tokens are highly unlikely to be present in > > current programs. I.e. they shouldn't break any current code. > > > > > > > > (Ahem) Comments? > > > > > > regards, > > Mark