------art_12830_24383598.1209639730008
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Brian Candler <B.Candler / pobox.com> wrote:

> But at the end of the day, I'd vote for removing alternative syntaxes
> altogether. It becomes harder to sell Ruby if there are too many
> equivalent
> but different idioms to learn.
>

yeah. I'd vote for removing the "do end" syntax for blocks too ;). I always
found it hard to visually distinguish blocks from other constructs like if
and for when they are written as "do .... end" as compared to { ... }. So I
became a do-end hater. But as I know there are a lot of people who love
do-end there is probably no way to remove them from the language.

-- henon

------art_12830_24383598.1209639730008
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Brian Candler &lt;<a hrefailto:B.Candler / pobox.com">B.Candler / pobox.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br><div classmail_quote"><blockquote classmail_quote" styleorder-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
But at the end of the day, I&#39;d vote for removing alternative syntaxes<br>
altogether. It becomes harder to sell Ruby if there are too many equivalent<br>
but different idioms to learn.<br>
</blockquote></div><br>yeah. I&#39;d vote for removing the &quot;do end&quot; syntax for blocks too ;). I always found it hard to visually distinguish blocks from other constructs like if and for when they are written as &quot;do .... end&quot; as compared to { ... }. So I became a do-end hater. But as I know there are a lot of people who love do-end there is probably no way to remove them from the language.<br>
<br>-- henon<br><br>

------art_12830_24383598.1209639730008--