// comments

[Greg Hudson]

On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 12:15 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I'd like to argue that we should.  The rest of the world seems to
> generate patches and diffs using C99 comments.  Transforming them
> introduces unnecessary differences, and I don't see any compelling
> reason not to accept this aspect of C99.

I'm a little surprised by this argument.  We have a coding style which
calls for comments in a particular form:

http://k5wiki.kerberos.org/wiki/Coding_style/Formatting#Comment_formatting

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that C99 comments won't break
anyone's build, are you arguing that:

1. We shouldn't have a coding style (accept all contributions as-is)
2. Our coding style is outdated and should call for C99 comments instead
3. Our coding style shouldn't address comment formatting

Opinions among the other MIT staff vary. I favor having a fairly strict
coding style and adjusting people's contributions to match it.  This is
the first argument I've seen in a while in favor of being lax in order
to reduce merge-back effort.