From: Patrick Hurley <phurley@...>
Date: 2006-04-25T02:21:00+09:00
Subject: Re: Future of parenthesis?

On 4/24/06, dblack@wobblini.net <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
> Hi --
>
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Patrick Hurley wrote:
>
> > My understanding from reading this list is that at some point
> > _ambiguous_ expressions may require parenthesis. However, there is no
> > intention to disallow simple function calls/dsl syntax.
>
> Do you predicate that frequency of parentheses on method calls and
> dsl-ness vary inversely? :-)
>
>
> David
>
> --
> David A. Black (dblack@wobblini.net)
> Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypowerandlight.com)
>
> "Ruby for Rails" PDF now on sale!  http://www.manning.com/black
> Paper version coming in early May!
>
>

Maybe :-)

<tongue in cheek>Hey isn't a dsl just a bunch of function calls
without parenthesis so it fools people into thinking we have expanded
the language?</tongue in cheek>

I would assert that making parenthesis optional in the non-ambiguous
cases is one of the (many) language features that (without my
realizing it at first) drew me to Ruby. What can I say, I have a sweet
tooth and I like my syntax sugar (if I didn't I would stick with List
:-)

pth