From: Gregory Seidman <gsslist+ruby@...>
Date: 2006-02-07T01:07:02+09:00
Subject: Re: Indentation vs. "end"s

On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 12:38:20AM +0900, Lionel Thiry wrote:
} Mark Volkmann a ?crit :
} > On 2/3/06, Thomas Kirchner <lists@halffull.org> wrote:
} > 
} >>* On Feb  3 13:07, MenTaLguY (ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org) wrote:
} >>
} >>>For what it's worth, I also strongly dislike it.  It was one of my
} >>>least favorite features of OCaml's syntax.
} >>>
} >>>But here, the biggest problem is that (relative to other block endings
} >>>in pretty much any language I can think of), it's much harder to
} >>>visually count ;;s if they are squashed together as in your example.
} >>>
} >>>I think this is largely because there aren't any visual cues to the
} >>>boundary between tokens.  The gap between two ;s within the same ;; and
} >>>the gap between two ;s in adjacent ;; aren't visually distinguishable.
} >>
} >>I was going to write my own post, but it seems MenTaLguY did it for me!
} >>
} >>I am in total agreement; semicolons are an ugly way to end sections.
} >>Curly braces I have a much easier time with.
} > 
} > 
} > I'm not a fan of the curly braces, but if we do end up using them, I
} > hope we don't allow this.
} > 
} > def some_method(args)
} >   # some code
} > }
} > 
} > If we're going to use them, I think they need to be matched, so a {
} > should appear at the end of the method argument list.
} 
} def some_method = ->(args) {
} 	# some code
} }
} 
} :-p

You appear to be joking, but I'd kind of like that. I'd love to be able to
enclose *all* my scopes in curly braces and never type do/is/end at all.
I'm sure this comes of a C-syntax-centric worldview, but I'd love it.

module Foo {

  def bar() {
    #...
    if (something) {
    } elif (something_else) {
    } else {
    }
  }

  #...

}

class Baz {
  include Foo
  #...
}

} Lionel Thiry
--Greg