From: Jan Lelis <prog@...>
Date: 2010-07-10T09:42:38+09:00
Subject: Re: what about allowing to specify, which end belongs to which   start?

> I think "encouraged" is the wrong word.  Your extension would _force_
> the user to use this idiom (which I personally find too verbose).
Also,
> your solution does not help if you nest the same type of control flow
> statement.  If you want to document nesting you can do that today
> already (and some people actually do it).  [...]

I thought more of: use it seldom (it's too verbose), only at spots,
where there are, e.g. at least 3 "end"s... The problem with documenting
is that the interpreter cannot detect false order, etc.

> I think if you have so many ends that you need to extend the syntax
> then you're doing something wrong to begin with (no pun). I try to
> make all my methods short when I can, and I use judicious use of
> extra returns to separate code into paragraphs to further help. I
> think this type of syntax extension would further encourage large bad
> codes.

Yes, the syntax would to have be extended... but that's no reason why it
cannot be good...
Unfortunately, it is not always possible (or good) to keep the code
short and flat...

> Plus, editors with auto indentation and code completion usually help.
I
> personally have made it a habit to always write the opening and
closing
> construct before I fill in the body.  That way you can work pretty
well
> even if your editor does not have fancy features.

Yes, but it is not only about the writing, also about the reading or
refactoring of code.

_____
J-_-L