Yes.. the Julia's way of 'end' is just fine. It makes things easy and obvious. On 9 May 2014 18:51, "John Myles White" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't see any future in which Julia is going to adopt Python's > indentation rules. Discussing the issue seems like a total waste of > people's time. > > -- John > > On May 9, 2014, at 10:47 AM, km <[email protected]> wrote: > > why not just adapt indendation concept from python and forget about these > trailing "end"s ? > "for loops" are ubuquitous and the trailing end statements makes the code > more redundant. infact boiler plate stuff is boring. > > > > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Rayan Ivaturi <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes, but when there are distinct blocks of code and 'end' is just for >> marking the close of the block, may be one single 'end' would do. like >> >> term_freq=Dict{String, Int64}() >> for word in english_dictionary >> for url in url_list >> if search(line, word) != (0:-1) >> term_freq[word]=get(term_freq,word,0)+1 >> end >> >> But again this causes lot of confusion both for parser and programmer and >> brings in the indentation bites of python... >> >> Looks like the end clutter can't be removed.. but much preferred over >> indentation. >> >> >> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 3:59 PM, harven <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> There are some alternative constructs that reduce the `end` noise, e.g. >>> >>> for word in english_dictionary, url in url_list >>> search(line, word) != (0:-1) && >>> (term_freq[word]=get(term_freq,word,0)+1) >>> end >>> >>> other examples: >>> >>> begin >>> expression1 >>> expression2 >>> end >>> >>> is equivalent to >>> >>> (expression1; expression2) >>> >>> if/then/else/end can be written using the ternary operator ?: etc. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> *Rayan Ivaturi* > > > >
