This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --1926193751-249019675-1195303749426 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Hi -- On Sat, 17 Nov 2007, James Edward Gray II wrote: > On Nov 16, 2007, at 8:43 PM, Austin Ziegler wrote: > >> On 11/16/07, Trans <transfire / gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Nov 16, 2:59 pm, "David A. Black" <dbl... / rubypal.com> wrote: >>>> some_expression >>>> .a_method(a,b,c) >>>> >>>> is that it's confusing and not worth creating an exception to the >>>> otherwise consistent rules about linebreaks. That's why I say I'd like >>>> to see it backed out of 1.9 (which I say partly to bring us back to >>>> the topic of Ruby development :-) >>> >>> It a far sight better then what people were doing: >>> >>> some_expression. >>> a_method(a,b,c) >>> >>> which really sucks. >> >> Meh. >> >> I've never understood why people do: >> foo(bar >> , baz >> , quux) >> >> I far prefer: >> >> foo(bar, >> baz, >> quux) >> >> Yeah, the former is *theoretically* easier to add to and remove from, >> but it's ugly as Medusa. I'm with Mr Black. > > These discussions always remind me of this: > > if { > > } > > versus: > > if > { > > } It's different, though, because there's no exception to a rule being introduced by either of those two (assuming the rule is that if involves curly braces). With the leading dot thing, it's an exception (or a new rule), not a style choice by the programmer. It *will* be a style choice, if it stays in the language; but making it possible in the language involves a change to the line-parsing rules themselves. David -- Upcoming training by David A. Black/Ruby Power and Light, LLC: * Advancing With Rails, Berlin, Germany, November 19-22 * Intro to Rails, London, UK, December 3-6 (by Skills Matter) See http://www.rubypal.com for details! --1926193751-249019675-1195303749426--