Hi --

On Sat, 28 May 2005, Sam Roberts wrote:

> Quoting dave / burt.id.au, on Sat, May 28, 2005 at 12:00:20AM +0900:
>> I vote with the indenting you've attributed to matz in all of these. I don't
>> see that any of these structures call for double-indenting.
>
> How matz does it.
>
> The only point of consistent indenting its that it be... consistent.
>
> If I was inventing from scratch, I might do as you prefer, too, but as
> I code in ruby, I do as Matz does.

I agree strongly.  Ruby has a beautiful and perfectly useable
traditional/Matz style.  It can be exhilerating to realize you're
"allowed" to indent things differently, give your methods camelCase
names, put semicolons at the end of each line (because you "come from"
C or Perl), and all of that.  But only in the short run.  In the long
run, the traditional style is going to come across as more attractive
as well as more consistent.  (Didn't a lot of us start looking closely
at Ruby in part because of how it looked?)


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack / wobblini.net