Thats why I keep sayind defacto (by default) in other words this style
became required because blocks are like parameters in ruby.  I'm not
trying to say someone just happened to think K&R style was the best
thing ever with respect to blocks.  This is why I asked what the
reason was for the parsing errors in my original question.

What does the first line you quoted have to do with syntax of a
language that statement was in response to davids assertion that
people should use one convention when programming in the real world
(IE one that he happens to like.) my contention is that this is not
really up to the language to enforce an indentation scheme.

With respect to copious amounts of comments what makes it a good idea
to assume that whoever else might be reading the code you have written
is at the same skill level as you are especially if you decide to
opensource your work.

Personally I try to keep the comments to anything I feel that might be
a bit strange to someone not because of formatting but because they
simply have never seen a given technique I use before.  Eg:Case
statements alot of the people I know at Uni don't really understand
cases so I try to put comments near my cases if I am going to be
sharing code with them.  Or I simply tell them what this or that does
while I am face to face with them.

With respect to the last line you quoted it is precisely because this
is an opinion that making it a syntactical requirement of the language
is a mistake not everyone will find the same parts of a language as
readable as others will.  I find cases to be much easier to read than
if's generally should I go make a language that does not have an if
construct at all and instead only allows cases?

Also take note that I was refering to the use of ?: in c/c++ not in ruby.

As I said in the begining these are just minor annoyances I feel like
some here are taking things far too personally or are too busy trying
to pull rank on someone to actually see the point they are trying to
make. (I do not mean you Lou.)

On 10/6/06, Louis J Scoras <louis.j.scoras / gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/6/06, Kevin Olemoh <darkintent / gmail.com> wrote:
> > David just because you like a given way of formatting does not mean
> > that everyone else should have to use it while they are creating
> > something even if they are working with you.
>
> I'm not sure what you are asking for in that case.  How is a language
> supposed to figure out what you mean unless there is a specific
> construct it understands?  There has to be a specific rules for
> syntax, even if it is a very simple one as with lisp.
>
> > The points you brought up are the reason people need to be using
> > comments in code not a reason for the language itself to try and
> > force a method of formatting onto its users.  I can't count how many
> > times i have seen code that while well formatted does not make
> > nearly as much sense as it could because whoever wrote the code
> > did not put in enough comments if any at all.  In the real world you
> > speak of people need to actually explain themselves when others
> > are going to be reading the code the formatting of the code is almost
> > entirely secondary.
>
> I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.  More often than
> not, copious comments   are a bad code smell.  It means that your code
> isn't readable enough or is hard to follow.  Try to refactor it to
> make the logic cleaner instead.
>
> > (Are you sure you actually now what you are talking about what with
> > the overwhelming arrogance that you are exuding and all?)
>
> You don't think you're being a little arrogant as well?  You come off
> as somebody that is just whining because things aren't the way you'd
> like them to be.  Language designers are--generally speaking--a pretty
> intelligent group of people.  Just because you don't like C's ternary
> operator doesn't mean it was a design mistake.
>
> > I should have said that the ternary operator is a conditional
> > expression that often serves the same or very simillar functinction as
> > a "traditional" if statement in c/c++
>
> Actually it doesn't.  The ternary operator ?: is very different from
> if/then in C because C, unlike Ruby, distinguishes between statements
> and expressions.
>
> > However my real point was that requiring things like that which can be
> > very difficult to read is a mistake on the part of the people creating
> > the syntax of a language and that point still stands.
> > The only person who is flaming anyone here is you my friend.
>
> This is purely an opinion.  I find the construct to be sufficiently readable.
>
>
> --
> Lou.
>
>