Then I guess we can get used to the end statement. I don’t see it as big deal, it's just one extra line and after some coding we learn to ignore it. ;)
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Stefan Karpinski <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes. > > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 5:05 PM, E. Tadeu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Is it too late to support dedentation (removing indentation) as a block >> terminator, like in Python? :) >> >> >> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Tom Breloff <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Seems like a parser change is more correct. What exactly does it mean >>> to say "true = 5"? >>> >>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Yichao Yu <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Adrian Salceanu >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > The only place where I find the "end" requirement annoying is for one >>>> line >>>> > IF statements. When you have a short one liner, the "end" part just >>>> does not >>>> > feel right. It would be nice if the "end" could be left out for one >>>> liners. >>>> > Even PHP allows one to skip the accolades in such cases. >>>> > >>>> > If there's some other way of achieving this I'd love to hear about >>>> it. I >>>> > don't like the ternary operator in this situation cause it forces me >>>> to add >>>> > the 3rd part as "nothing" or whatever. And doing "expr1 && expr2" >>>> only works >>>> > when expr2 is "return" for instance, otherwise the compiler complains >>>> about >>>> > using a non-boolean in a boolean context. >>>> >>>> It shouldn't. Unless you are using the result in a boolean context. >>>> The only case where this doesn't work is assignment, where `a && b = >>>> c` is parsed as `(a && b) = c` and not `a && (b = c)`. This can be >>>> workaround by adding parenthesis as shown above and maybe we can also >>>> change the parser too? >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > vineri, 6 mai 2016, 20:37:49 UTC+2, Stefan Karpinski a scris: >>>> >> >>>> >> There is a long history of languages using this syntax, including >>>> Algol, >>>> >> Pascal, Ruby and Matlab. >>>> >> >>>> >> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Ford Ox <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Is there any reasoning behind it? It seems to me like a weird choice >>>> >>> since you have to type three letters, which is the complete >>>> opposite of the >>>> >>> goal of this language - being very productive (a lot work done with >>>> little >>>> >>> code). >>>> >>> On top of that, brain has to read the word every time your eyes >>>> look at >>>> >>> it so you spend more time also reading the code - tho this should >>>> be easy to >>>> >>> omit, by highlighting this keyword by other color than other >>>> keywords (the >>>> >>> current purple color in ATOM just drives me crazy, since it is one >>>> of the >>>> >>> most violent colors, so my eyes always try to read that useless >>>> piece of >>>> >>> information first, instead of the important code). >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >>> >>> >> >
