On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 07:41:21 +0900, Nathaniel Talbott
<nathaniel / talbott.ws> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 2004, at 11:03, Eivind Eklund wrote:
> 
> > For me:
> > * My brain is conditioned to automatically "ignore" lines that start
> > with # - they're there as documentation, but they are very clearly
> > separate from code
> > * They're automatically highlighted "away" in my editor.
> 
> Certainly possible complaints... but not enough to dissuade me from my
> course. I personally look forward to people being able to use these,
> because maybe more folks that are disinclined to write comments for
> their libraries will at least plunk some examples in to them.

The _maybe_ is the important part of this sentence, I think.

And the same may be true of Florian's approach if made more easily
available (those comments could also be parsed out by Test::Unit
automatically...)

> > So far, I prefer Florian's approach - however, it may be this works
> > out OK in a highlighting editor (because def gets highlighted).  In
> > black and white, Florian's is much easier to read, and less overhead,
> > though.
> 
> I think that if folks did use this a lot, we would quickly learn to
> recognize it just like we recognize all the other things one can do
> dynamically in the class definition.

Ah, you hit a nail on the head.  Maybe a different one than you were
aiming for, though ;-)

These declarations are presently ugly to me.  I think they're
presently ugly to a lot of other people, too.  They may not be ugly
once I've become accustomed to them - but they will mean that Ruby
with them would be ugly to newcomers.

I also think the feeling of the declarations being ugly will result in
the Ruby community not adopting them.

Could people (excepting Nathaniel) that is likely to use the proposed
syntax please speak up?  (If there's a lot of people that would use
it, I'm probably wrong.)

Eivind.
-- 
Hazzle free packages for Ruby?
RPA is available from http://www.rubyarchive.org/