Markus
10/9/2004 3:19:00 AM
Sorry if I was not clear. I have no reason to think it would be
hard to implement, but I haven't looked at how to do it (and am only
just learning the parser), so I don't want to declare that it would be
easy, or even possible.
-- Markus
On Fri, 2004-10-08 at 17:58, "Peña, Botp" wrote:
> Markus [mailto:markus@reality.com] wrote:
>
> > * Augmenting 'end' (optionally) with a structure keyword and a
> > name might be possible. It would certainly provide enough
> > information, but may or may not be implementable
> >
>
> *How I wish I were as good as many of the people here (good in english and
> programming).
>
> when I said: "make extended ends(endclass/enddef/endif) optional and make
> them synonyms to end, thus programmer is free to use them or not",
>
> I am _not advocating that we use all the extended ends. I am very happy w
> the simplicity and flexibility of the simple "end".
>
> I am only suggesting that we (if possible):
>
> 1. make endif/enddef/endclass optional and synonyms of end. Compiler does
> not care, but -c with_extended_end does (otoh, if it indeed cares, then much
> better).
>
> 2. as a matter of style, make the use of extended ends sparingly (it is
> programmer's fault if his code looks dirty). Only use it with fear..
>
> 3. even a simple insertion of one endif eg, can help a lot in matching
> pairs. One does not need to splat codes w endfoos...
>
> Is #1 not implementable because of #2 & #3?
>
> >-- Markus
> >
>
> kind regards -botp
>
>
>
>
>
>