A modest indentation proposal

[Steve Lamb]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 14:06:55 -0800, Erann Gat <gat at jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> No, it would not become "illegal" under my proposal.  Please go back and
> re-read what I wrote, and pay particular attention to the word "optional".

    What was written:

---- SNIP ----

2) Parser support.  It would be enough to simply give a warning if there                         
is a discrepancy between the block structure defined by indentation and                          
that defined by the semicolon-at-end-of-line convention (i.e. "Warning:                          
end of block detected without trailing semicolon").  Making this optional                        
so that die-hard indentation fans could turn it off would also be fine.     

---- SNIP ----

    What you said was that there would be a warning and that the /warning/
would be optional.  You did not address the valid concern that...

if x:
  foo();
  bar();
  baz();

    ...has to be parsed and under your rules foo(); is the end of the block.
IE, if we take your proposal as it was presented, that a line that ends with a
semicolon denotes the end of a block, the above is invalid.  If a line that
ends with a semicolon does not denote the end of a block, your proposal is
moot as it doesn't change a thing.

-- 
         Steve C. Lamb         | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
         ICQ: 5107343          | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
    To email: Don't despair!   |  -- Lenny Nero, Strange Days
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------