From: Tony Arcieri <tony.arcieri@...>
Date: 2010-11-30T08:32:04+09:00
Subject: Re: RFC Future Ruby hash literal syntax

--001636c5ab5da13caa0496397a4d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 3:58 PM, John W Higgins <wishdev@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd vote none of the above. That has got to be some of the ugliest looking
> ruby code I've ever seen.


Ditto. Forget about shift/reduce conflicts... I don't care if a parser can't
figure out so much as if my brain can't figure out, and looking at your
examples I can't tell what's going on.

Replacing , with ; in the new hash literal syntax would be a bad change,
imo. The new hash literal syntax works well for keyword arguments and in
fact I'd consider that the main use case, e.g.

    mymethod(arg1: x, arg2: y, arg3: z)

The idea being you could use this in lieu of:

    mymethod(x, y, z)

so using a , is much more natural.

-- 
Tony Arcieri
Medioh! A Kudelski Brand

--001636c5ab5da13caa0496397a4d--