From: William Djaja Tjokroaminata <billtj@...>
Date: 2002-09-30T22:16:40+09:00
Subject: Re: call for commentary: review of Ruby for a magazine (long, sorry!)

Hi,

To hide the 'end' keywords in writing is definitely possible, as in my
SRuby that I wrote in one-day (not heavily tested at all).  To do the
other way (for reading), I think it is also definitely possible and
probably even easier (but I think it probably should be done in the
emacs-way, i.e., to hide them only on display).

Regards,

Bill
=============================================================================
Massimiliano Mirra <list@nospamchromatic-harp.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 09:39:53PM +0900, dblack@candle.superlink.net wrote:
>> > I've been lately thinking of the coolness of having several different
>> > syntaxes for the same underlying "language", especially if some tool is
>> > able to translate between them... Imagine having a Python-esque syntax
>> > w/ significant spaces in Ruby. That could for sure lure some pythonists ;)

> A question to the ELISP hackers aboard: Emacs already allows several
> modifications of the appearance of code -- I'm thinking about the
> hide-show-mode, that hides a block's content and only shows its
> header, and the glasses-mode, that shows CamelCase as Camel_Case.

> Below the surface, there's still CamelCase, and of course the block
> body is still there.  Would it be difficult to hide the `end' keywords
> (both in reading and, somehow, in writing), for those fond of
> Python's syntax?

> Massimiliano