joesb wrote:
> It also simplify many semantic in Ruby for example. defining
> class/method could be viewed as a method that takes a block. But "do"
> wouldn't  make sense there, but:
> 
> class Person is    #<<< just a method taking a block
>     def say(message) is   #<<< Don't know :S
>         ...
>     end
> end
> 
> It may make Ruby code reflect more closely to what I am thinking in
> word.

I think I like this. If it were an RCR, I just might vote for it.

But I would want two things:
   1. Not too much proliferation, please. "is" and "do" are enough.
   2. Let's make it clear that "is/end" and "do/end" shall behave
      exactly the same way. No subtle differences, please.

This almost makes me want an alias_keyword... but that would probably
cause more problems than it would solve.


Hal