From: Roger Pack <rogerpack2005@...>
Date: 2009-05-21T21:06:14+09:00
Subject: Re: Pythonic indentation (or: beating a dead horse)

> Another concern I have about this idea, though, is having essentially
> two forks of Ruby lexically speaking.  It's not much of an obstacle,
> but it is a minor difference that someone who comes along later to
> maintain your code might find confusing or off-putting.  And even
> though this particular change might be relatively minor, where do we
> draw the line?  What makes us decide whether another optional syntax
> change should be integrated into the language?  Even many small
> changes add up to a big difference in the way the code looks and the
> ease of maintainability.

Good point.  There might be a way to go back and forth between the two, 
though,if that were any help.
i.e.
a = proc { 3+3 }.
a.to_ruby_indented.to_ruby or what not (viz ruby2ruby).

And the authors of gems using this syntax could require them 
transparently, i.e.
some method like require_indented 'filename' or what not.

> Macros, as I suggested above, would _really_ move in the direction of
> potential Ruby code that looks radically different.  But the payoff
> would be enormous expressive power, the ability to mold the language
> to suit the application domain in a very comprehensive way.  The
> removal of 'end', by contrast, would be only a slight improvement.  It
> would remove some visual noise and might attract a few Python
> programmers.  As I said, I think it's worth it if it's easy to
> implement, but not if it's more difficult.

Interesting--it's been awhile since I used C...what would 
macros...essentially do? An example of them?

Tgarding the OP suggestion: I think it's an interesting idea.  Start 
something for it on github and I'd be happy to help out.  Here's some 
resources for it:
http://ruby-toolbox.com/ "testing frameworks"


The only real concern with it is that there is may be ambiguity if 
someone were to use the "a ? b : c" syntax (whatever it's called) and 
split that onto multiple lines just the "perfectly wrong way"

a ? b :
 c

Then that would break a naive pre processor.  But not many people I know 
split those constructs across multiple lines, and they definitely 
wouldn't within a file they know to be using "ruby indented blocks" or 
whatever you want to call it.  There's also the possible collision with 
1.9's new symbol
b: == :b
but again, if you disallow that on end of line's then you're good to go.

Best of luck.
-=r
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.