From: MonkeeSage <MonkeeSage@...>
Date: 2007-12-15T04:10:00+09:00
Subject: Re: comma separated lists syntax error

On Dec 13, 11:24 am, Phrogz <phr...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 6:26 pm, ry dahl <r...@tinyclouds.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > For the same obvious reasons as you desire that, does it sufficiently
> > > please you that this alternate markup works:
>
> > > C:\>type tmp.rb
> > > h = {
> > >   :a => 1,
> > >   :b => 2,
> > >   :c => 3,
> > > }
>
> > > p h
>
> > > C:\>ruby tmp.rb
> > > {:c=>3, :a=>1, :b=>2}
> > No, the benefit is that the separators are at the beginning of the
> > elements, aligned and in the same column so that it is easy to see one
> > is not missing, you also don't need to maintain the commas at the end
> > of the line.
>
> Ah; I thought the 'obvious' benefit you were referring to was that you
> could copy/paste lines to change the order without having to remember
> to use commas after every element except the last.

In haskell (mainly because of "layout") and to a lesser extent, ocaml,
people tend to format records (and such) with a syntax that commas
line up with the opening/closing bracket, and appear on the line after
the record field declaration. It makes kind of a visual "wall" between
the name binding and the body of the declaration. It's just a matter
of taste and custom, and really, even with haskell, some people format
their code differently.

Regards,
Jordan