From: Michael Campbell <michael_s_campbell@...>
Date: 2002-09-10T22:04:02+09:00
Subject: Re: Larry Wall's comments on Ruby

> > def fun(foo)
> >     ...
> > end
> > 
> > to me seems to be much cleaner than
> > 
> > fun(foo):
> >     ...
> > 
> > or
> > 
> > sub fun(foo)
> > {
> >     ...
> > }
> 
> whereas the latter will come up again with blocks.
> (Haven't you ever seen this in Ruby? :
> 
>            }
>          }
>        }
>      }
>    }
> )

I have.  (And in C, Java, C++, etc.)  And in almost every case, it is
a "bad code smell".  If nothing else, it's a place I'd look to
refactor.  

This is also why I hate the "} // end for ..." comments and also
specific end tokens ("end for", "end if", etc.).  If you need them to
see what's going on in the code, there's something wrong with the
code.

That doesn't make {} vs. indentation any better or worse, mind you,
I'm simply pointing out that the "uglyness" you list here is not an
argument for one style over the other, but an argument of bad code
that isn't the language's fault.



=====
--
Use your computer to help find a cure for cancer: http://members.ud.com/projects/cancer/

Yahoo IM: michael_s_campbell

__________________________________________________
Yahoo! - We Remember
9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost
http://dir.remember.yahoo.com/tribute