"Reid Thompson" <reid.thompson / ateb.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:4A1F5409.4020909 / ateb.com...
> Michael Bruschkewitz wrote:
>>
>
>> If it would be strictly optional it would be fine.
>> Should be need to be explicitely allowed for not breaking existent code.
>> Maybe as gem possible.
>
> There's no way it could be *strictly* optional.

I dont really understand this sentence (too much indirection - I'm german 
and I'm tired...) Did you mean "It must be strictly optional" ?

> Unless you provide some way for
> persons that want code block ends to automatically convert code without 
> ends to
> code with ends.
>

Maybe any code in any language should be stored in some generic form meta 
language (we would have enough space to store it now - car crysis left 
enough oil to create magnetic tapes) and the _Editor_ provides the view 
which best fits to the current developer. (Example: translate keyword to 
japanese signs, direction of writing a.s.o.)
Editor could also apply current coding rules. The would increase code safety 
and security, and efficiency. It would even allow GUI's for creating code 
from/by Flowcharts.

I'm really serious.
This would be really a revolutionary improvement. (Removing most reasons for 
current holy wars and create a huge field for new, interesting ones.)
But these backbone language would not be Ruby.

Also, IMHO, PyI wouldt break principle of least surprise.

At breakfast I had the idea it would be possible to implement/apply it to 
current file it by simply using
"require 'tool4endH8ers.rb'" or
"require 'languageConverter_pyi.rb'" or
"require 'languageConverter_BASIC.rb'" or
"require 'languageConverter_f77.rb'" or...
"require 'applySomeOtherWeirdOptions.rb'" or...
at the beginning of each file or at the beginning of main file.
I'm sure some Kernel.magic would make this possible.

Why not think about providing a mechanism which provides this possibility?

Regards,
Michael B.