From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2005-02-12T23:46:55+09:00
Subject: Re: utilizing ++ and -- for comments

--927295978-1793839709-1108219602=:31957
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="927295978-1793839709-1108219602=:31957"

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--927295978-1793839709-1108219602=:31957
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

Hi --

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, [iso-8859-1] "Pe=F1a, Botp" wrote:

> Since ++ and -- wont see the light of day in ruby, can we use it for comm=
ent
> notation?

They've already seen the light of day:

irb(main):001:0> ++ 100
=3D> 100
irb(main):002:0> -- 100
=3D> 100

And we have comment mechanisms already too :-)

> define:
> 1. -- equal to # comment
> 2. --- (or more dashes) equal to =3Dbegin
>   next --- (or more) equal to =3Dend
> 3. ++ same comment as #1 above
> 4. +++ same comment as #2 above
>
> Reasons:
> 1. I like "--", very clean [1]

I understand that not everyone likes the hash-mark comment idiom.  But
isn't this just another of the thousand things where it is literally
impossible for everyone to have it exactly how they want, and Matz has
gone ahead and made a reasonable decision?  We can of course talk
about what looks best (and not agree), what's easiest to type (and not
agree), what will/won't make Perl/C/Java/etc. programmers feel at home
(and not agree about whether we care :-), and so forth.  But that will
be true no matter what the comment mechanism is.


David

--=20
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net
--927295978-1793839709-1108219602=:31957--
--927295978-1793839709-1108219602=:31957--