Jacob Fugal ha scritto:
> On 8/5/05, gabriele renzi <surrender_it / remove-yahoo.it> wrote:
> 
>>not that this is important, but I was'nt suggesting indentation based
>>syntax, which I dislike for reasons (i.e. commenting may mess syntax)
>>that do not apply to implict terminators.
> 
> 
> I'm a little confused then... how do you disambiguate implicit block
> terminators without significant whitespace? Take for example the
> following case, with no leading whitespace (to make sure it's not
> significant):
> 
>   module Foo
>   class Bar
> 
> That's it, just two lines, and I can define a module and a class.
> Pretty nice. But what am I defining? Is the class ::Bar or Foo::Bar?

the latter, if you wanted to write the former you should have been using 
the explicit form.
The rule is not hard, it's just "when there is no ambiguity, you can 
omit", it's just like the use of parenthesis (or is it parenses?) around 
  arguments.
And mostly like the ";" at the end of every line that we don't ever write ;)
But as was already pointed out this seem to be non obvious, and thus it 
is probably a bad idea.


> Now, the syntax need not be ambiguous to the parser. Just choose a
> convention. But at that point it becomes impossible to do the other
> without reintroducing an explicit terminator. That would only make
> things even more confusing. Some terminators explicit, others
> implicit? No thank you!

just like ";", and like () around arguments to methods, afaict