dblack / wobblini.net wrote:
> I'm not sure I get that distinction -- I mean, I understand that you
> do it that way, but I'm not sure there's any generally closer
> association between do/end and rescuing than there is between {} and
> rescuing.  Also, they're sometimes used in the *same* places, but by
> different people :-)

Maybe it's time we make that distinction. From a syntactical point of 
view, they're very different -- only the keyword/end syntax really 
allows for such things as if/elsif/else/end and rescue clauses, unless 
you want to add this to Ruby:

   proc { foo } rescue { bar } ensure { baz }

Which in my opinion is just too verbose.

I like the curly syntax as a shorthand, but I don't think we need it to 
support all the same things the more "flexible" do/end syntax does.


Daniel