Markus [mailto:markus / reality.com] wrote:

>      * Augmenting 'end' (optionally) with a structure keyword and a
>        name might be possible.  It would certainly provide enough
>        information, but may or may not be implementable
>

*How I wish I were as good as many of the people here (good in english and
programming).

when I said: "make extended ends(endclass/enddef/endif) optional and make
them  synonyms to end, thus programmer is free to use them or not",

I am _not advocating that we use all the extended ends. I am very happy w
the simplicity and flexibility of the simple "end".

I am only suggesting that we (if possible):

1. make endif/enddef/endclass optional and synonyms of end. Compiler does
not care, but -c with_extended_end does (otoh, if it indeed cares, then much
better).

2. as a matter of style, make the use of extended ends sparingly (it is
programmer's fault if his code looks dirty). Only use it with fear..

3. even a simple insertion of one endif eg, can help a lot in matching
pairs. One does not need to splat codes w endfoos...

Is #1 not implementable because of #2 & #3?

>-- Markus
>

kind regards -botp