From: E S <eero.saynatkari@...>
Date: 2005-02-14T00:09:48+09:00
Subject: Re: mandatory braces

> L�hett�j�: Johannes Ahl-mann <softpro@gmx.net>
> Aihe: mandatory braces
> 
> hi,
> 
> i've been playing around with ruby a bit and have a proposal to make.
> i am sure that ruby won't adopt it right away and maybe it goes too much
> against the ruby way. also, if this has been discussed earlier here, i
> apologize for not researching ;-))
> 
> if ruby made braces (the round ones ;-) mandatory this would produce
> some very nice effects and break nothing except for backward compatibility
> (i think). regarding the backward compatibility one could even introduce
> a new command-line switch to explicitely activate the "new" syntax.
> a few things would become possible:
> 
> - differentiation between method bindings and method applications, i.e.
> 		"function1(function2)" instead of "function1(method(:function2))

Just skipping the method() step might be enough? The visual cue from
a Symbol would seem to be equivalent to parens, so:

function1(function2)  # Calls function1 with the result of function2
function1(:function2) # Calls function1 with a Proc/Method object

> - procedure objects could be treated similarly to functions:
> 		"myproc()" instead of "myproc.call()"

An overridable operator () would be useful.

> - ruby code would look more uniform, because at the moment the mixing
> 	of braces and no-braces drives me crazy *gg*
> - on the negative side this would force braces for methods "yield",
> 	"print", "puts", "break", etc.
> please tell me whether this is a bad idea,

Well, only for the fact that it would mandate extra typing :)

> Johannes

E