On 2/5/06, Hal Fulton <hal9000 / hypermetrics.com> wrote:
> 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.

I definitely wouldn't want that. I really feel that "less is more".
Less keywords, not more, will result in less confusion.

--
R. Mark Volkmann
Partner, Object Computing, Inc.