On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:21:16 +0900, Hal Fulton <hal9000 / hypermetrics.com> wrote:
> Austin Ziegler wrote:
> >>I think that you don't have to enforce any particular indentation style or
> >>amount of space on each line - only that it is consistent between begin and
> >>end.
> > No, no, no, and NO!
> :) Are you still ticked off after your system crash?

I'm annoyed that I haven't been able to do any Ruby coding for the
last week :) But I'm also finding these "let's change Ruby into
something else" discussions rather annoying with some of the proposed
directions.

1) Ranges: I have used the fact of 1...2 including 1.99 but not 2.0 in
the past. I don't think that this is something I want to change. I
would like to be able to have mutable ranges (including the ability to
make a range exclusive or inclusive after creation), but I think that
the syntax for ranges is right and consistent for 98% of all users of
Ruby.
2) Operators: I want += to be still automatically defined when I
define +. I agree with Matz about user precedence, although I think
that having a couple of fixed precedence values (instead of one) is
acceptable, to allow for things like := having a reasonably high
precedence.
3) This. I don't think that what has been suggested will be all that
useful. I have encountered a few of these missing "end" issues, and
with the folding that is in the vim-ruby package offered by the
community, I have rarely found that it takes me longer than five
minutes to fix this issue.

> I sympathize with both sides. Like you, I "flush left" my debug lines
> (fighting vim to do so, and hating the idea of coding without being
> able to do such).
> 
> I typically don't leave those in long, however. YMMV.

Me, either.

I think that there are possibilities here, though, now that it's been
explained that this is something to show up only in an error
condition.

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin / halostatue.ca
: as of this email, I have [ 6 ] Gmail invitations