Notes:
Strange how the programmer is avoiding the use of a string constant which was in fact in the Algol language, although its use was left undefined, and also the Flexowriter equipment did not have the good looking nestable string quotes that Algol demanded - so maybe that was the reason. Today we have are no longer concerned about nested strings and use directionless string quotes.
So this example of a comment within a comment is important because it reinforces our hunch that intentions are first put into comments and that there is always a hierarchy of intentions.
Which raises the question: Now that today we can in fact write the program in Algol or some other high level language, what language should we use in the comments? The point is that abstractions form a staircase, for every level, there may be a level below - which we may call an implementation, and a level above - which is a more intentional level.