Issue #5054 has been updated by Ralph Corderoy.


>  I prefer end! to enn..d.

That cannot work because it's not known how many ends are being replaced;
indentation can't be relied upon as this isn't Python.  Hence the original
suggestion of ennnd.  But that's not good because humans shouldn't have to
count when the computer can.

Can folks please stop adding comments that are +1 for ennd or end! or similar
without addressing the above points.  It adds nothing to the discussion and
suggests the writer hasn't read to the end of the issue before posting.

As for "enddo" only end-ing to the innermost "do", yes, that's correct.  But it
may be saving quite a few "end"s to do with ifs and fors that come in between,
giving back some valuable vertical space.
----------------------------------------
Feature #5054: Compress a sequence of ends
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/5054

Author: ANDO Yasushi ANDO
Status: Open
Priority: Normal
Assignee: 
Category: 
Target version: 


Though as matz said at rubykaigi2011 ruby is a quite good language, many people hate a long sequence of `end' like this:

module MyModule
  class MyClass
    def my_method
      10.times do
        if rand < 0.5 
          p :small
        end 
      end 
    end 
  end 
end

So, I'd like to propose introducing a special keyword, en(n+)d. Using this keyword, we can rewrite the above example like this:

module MyModule
  class MyClass
    def my_method
      10.times do
        if rand < 0.5 
          p :small
        ennnnnd 

I know matz's already rejected a python-style block. He wrote:

> it works badly with
>   * tab/space mixture
>   * templates, e.g. eRuby
>   * expression with code chunk, e.g lambdas and blocks
http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/108457

These bad things won't occur by introducing en(n+)d.

Some implementations already exists.

JRuby
- https://gist.github.com/1088363

CRuby
- http://www.atdot.net/sp/raw/kn9iol
- http://d.hatena.ne.jp/ku-ma-me/20110718/p1

Thanks for your consideration.


-- 
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org