From: Tim Hammerquist <tim@...>
Date: 2002-09-05T10:46:05+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby aesthetics

Yukihiro Matsumoto graced us by uttering:
> Tim Hammerquist <tim@vegeta.ath.cx> writes:
> 
>|>   * somehow "significant indentation" ...
[ snippage ]
>|I don't like this either, but I thought the sig. indent was a
>|completely separate mantra from the "no statements in most
>|places they would be useful" concept.  I don't see why you
>|can't have sig. indent w/o Python's annoying exclusion of
>|statements from conditional contexts.
> 
> Perhaps because it is very hard to consider a block by
> indentation as an expression for human recognition.
> In Ruby we can,
> 
>   inc = array.collect do |x|
>     p x  # for debugging purpose
>     x + 1
>   end
> 
> but using significant indentation, 
> 
>   inc = map(array, lambda x:
>                       print x
>                       x + 1)
> 
> makes me feel weird.  Maybe this comes from mixing expression
> grouping by parenthesises, and statement grouping by
> indentation.

I'd feel wierd doing that, too.

We could probably have a really long thread exploring how to
productively combine ruby syntax with significant indentation,
but let's not.

Significant indentation is rather like preventing cars from
passing each other by placing concrete pylons between each lane.
Sure traffic goes straighter, but renders a large number of
potential problems unsolveable.

I'm glad someone had the guts to enforce readable code (thx
Guido), but sometimes I prefer _usable_ code.  ;)

</asbestos>

:)

Tim Hammerquist
-- 
I think it's a new feature.  Don't tell anyone it was an accident.  :-)
         -- Larry Wall on s/foo/bar/eieio in <10911@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>