From: Reid Thompson <reid.thompson@...>
Date: 2009-05-30T00:05:22+09:00
Subject: Re: Pythonic indentation (or: beating a dead horse)

On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 17:56 +0900, Michael Bruschkewitz wrote:
> "Reid Thompson" <reid.thompson@ateb.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
> news:4A1F5409.4020909@ateb.com...
> > Michael Bruschkewitz wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> If it would be strictly optional it would be fine.
> >> Should be need to be explicitely allowed for not breaking existent code.
> >> Maybe as gem possible.
> >
> > There's no way it could be *strictly* optional.
> 
> I dont really understand this sentence (too much indirection - I'm german 
> and I'm tired...) Did you mean "It must be strictly optional" ?
What I mean is..
if endless ruby code is allowed, it cannot be strictly optional.  If a
core class or any other class/project that you utilize is coded without
ends, then you get endless ruby whether you want it or not.  

> 
> > Unless you provide some way for
> > persons that want code block ends to automatically convert code without 
> > ends to
> > code with ends.
> >
>