The Firefox developers have been busy for about five years telling
people that there should not be an interface to change keybindings.
The gnome developers have been telling people that they don't need
various options for some time as well and they are definetly not right
on alot of those issues. Opera software has had ages to implement  an
extension system yet they do little if anything at all while people
say that Opera does not need a robust extension system like the one in
Firefox (completely ignoring reality) Just because some "heavy" weight
says one thing does not make it right.

My whole point is that the interpereter should not have syntactic
rules that end up creating formatting requirements.  As someone else
pointed out those two are indeed different so the question is really
"Should block parameters break because of a newline before '{' ?"  The
fact that {} is a parameter is not really even relevant to my request.
 It just gives me insight into why the problem exists in the first
place.

Where did I say it was easy to fix?  I said it is easier to address
this type of thing in something that is manufactured rather than
something "grows" like a spoken language.  So please do pull your head
out of your backside ahnd don't shove words in my mouth thank you.



On 10/14/06, Tanner Burson <tanner.burson / gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/13/06, Kevin Olemoh <darkintent / gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Actually I am asking for ruby to allow me the freedom to make my own
> > code readable to me.  I personally don't know perl so I can't comment
> > on Perl however I will say that the interpereter should know when you
> > are using a block and search for  the do keyword or { and ignore the
> > newline.  In other words a method that requires a block as a parameter
> > (like each) should *not* be terminated by a newline they should be
> > terminated either by a closing brace or tne end keyword.  Grabbing the
> > user by the balls with respect to how the code is formatted is not a
> > good thing even if it is a side-effect of how blocks work in the
> > language.
>
>
> I can understand the "problem" you are trying to address, but please, use
> the language as it is, and has been for years, then decide how restrictive
> these sorts of things really are.  I entirely respect your opinion, but you
> have had several community heavy-weights post in this thread, and tell you
> why this isn't neccessary, or isn't reasonable.  It is seen as disrespectful
> for you to show up, recommend fundamental changes to a language, and then
> ignore the advice of the experts of the language.  So what appears to you,
> in your limited use of Ruby, as a "formatting" issue, is in fact a much
> deeper, and more complicated syntax issue.  You have ignored this route of
> discussion, so please, show respect to those with experience.
>
> You also mention how "easy" this must be to solve.  Ruby is open source,
> which means you have all the access required to fix this problem yourself.
> Since the "experts" on these sorts of issues, have declared this an
> unreasonable change, by all means, use the source and prove them wrong.  If
> you don't feel qualified, or capable of fixing this issue on your own, then
> you will have to rely on the knowledge of the experts.  This is the way open
> source works.  If the change is easy, put up the code.
>
>
> --
> ===Tanner Burson===
> tanner.burson / gmail.com
> http://tannerburson.com   <---Might even work one day...
>
>