From: Luke Duncalfe <l.d.u.n.c.a.l.f.e@...> (dot)
Date: 2006-02-04T16:13:20+09:00
Subject: Re: Indentation vs. "end"s


Hi,

I'm not the most experienced Ruby user, but for what it's worth one of the
reasons I chose to program in Ruby is because the language looked, to me, so
damn nice. I'm an artist who works as a programmer, so flaky reasons like
the aesthetics of the code were very important to me in deciding to take
Ruby on.

I don't really like the idea of ;; because to me it breaks the beauty of
Ruby code. But I do like the idea of have symbols replace an 'end'. My take
on a nicer symbol to use would be '<', it's like pointing back to the margin
saying 'go home now'. Except, any multiple symbol would, I think, not really
help to clarify the code, and would instead just be quicker to type than
'end'. How about having one symbol, which basically would end all nested
functions and conditionals, except not close the class.

So working with Matz's example, it would look like this:

  class Foo
     def bar(a)
       p a
     <
   end

Or, with more nesting

   class Foo
     def bar(a)
        if (a)
           p a
        <
    end

So, without a class, code could look like this:

if (a)
    if (b)
        if (c)
            if (d)
                p e
            <


?

Luke

"Yukihiro Matsumoto" <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote in message
news:1138877284.580712.22693.nullmailer@x31.priv.netlab.jp...
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: Indentation vs. "end"s"
>     on Thu, 2 Feb 2006 06:37:02 +0900, "Rubyist"
<nuby.ruby.programmer@gmail.com> writes:
>
> |What do you think about those "end"s? Do you *REALLY* like them?
> |Will Ruby-2 offer an alternative? Well, maybe not "indentation" but
> |will another solution be available?
>
> We are experimenting double semicolons as well as "end"s, so that you
> can type
>
>   class Foo
>     def bar(a)
>       p a
>     ;;
>   ;;
>
> instead of
>
>   class Foo
>     def bar(a)
>       p a
>     end
>   end
>
> Or you can even type
>
>   class Foo
>     def bar(a)
>       p a;;;;
>
> But I'm still not sure if it's good enough to be remained in 2.0.
> No, don't worry, we are NOT going to remove "end"s from the language;
> double semicolons are just alternative.
>
> matz.
>
>