G
gabriele renzi
Hi gurus and nubys,
Hearing about ocaml in the last weeks and having noticed matz'
hack about using ;; as a block terminator (side by side with "end"),
I realized that it could be nice if ruby could work the same ocaml does
WRT to block terminator, I mean, make them optional when there is no
ambiguity
What I am thinking is cases like these in ruby:
def foo
def bar
# bar gets defined as if it was declared
# out of foo, quite useless
end
end
and
def foo
#SyntaxError
Someconstant or class Foo or module Foo
end
it could be cool if ruby could threat this cases as if there was an
implicit block terminator, like ocaml does, so we could write
class Foo
def bar(x)
puts x
def baz
puts 'baz'
Const=:someconstant
end
instead of
class Foo
def bar(x)
puts x
end
def baz
puts 'baz'
end
Const=:someconst
end
Ok, I admit that it's not a big deal, but what do people think of this?
Hearing about ocaml in the last weeks and having noticed matz'
hack about using ;; as a block terminator (side by side with "end"),
I realized that it could be nice if ruby could work the same ocaml does
WRT to block terminator, I mean, make them optional when there is no
ambiguity
What I am thinking is cases like these in ruby:
def foo
def bar
# bar gets defined as if it was declared
# out of foo, quite useless
end
end
and
def foo
#SyntaxError
Someconstant or class Foo or module Foo
end
it could be cool if ruby could threat this cases as if there was an
implicit block terminator, like ocaml does, so we could write
class Foo
def bar(x)
puts x
def baz
puts 'baz'
Const=:someconstant
end
instead of
class Foo
def bar(x)
puts x
end
def baz
puts 'baz'
end
Const=:someconst
end
Ok, I admit that it's not a big deal, but what do people think of this?