I never had problems with omitting semicolons; maybe it's because of the extensive Pascal training.
If you write short subroutines, as you should, you don't suffer from misplaced closing curly braces. I had problems with them, especially when doing large edits on code not written by me, but the editor always saved me.
Both puns intended.
map{substr$_->[0],$_->[1]||0,1}[\*||{},3],[[]],[ref qr-1,-,-1],[{}],[sub{}^*ARGV,3]
| [reply]
[d/l] |
More or less agree WRT mismatched closing curlies. I see it pretty much entirely as an editor issue.
(I mean isn't that the whole python argument for Semantic-Whitespace-As-Grouping? At least I recall that ("Your editor will keep it straight") being seriously offered as a valid dismissal of the criticism against S-W-A-G . . .)
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
| [reply] |
I mean isn't that the whole python argument for Semantic-Whitespace-As-Grouping?
No the argument is different, but using indentation to determine block nesting does allow multiple closure of blocks, as a side effect. Python invented mixed solution when there is an opening bracket (usually ":") and there is no closing bracket -- instead the change in indent is used as the proxy for the presence the closing bracket.
The problem is that it breaks too many other things, so here the question "whether it worth it" would be more appropriate, then in the case of soft semicolons or "reverse labels on "}" like "}LABEL" .
| [reply] |
As somebody mentioned here the editor that has "match brace" can be used to track it but that does not solve the problem itself, rather it provides a rather inefficient (for complex script) way to troubleshoot one. Which arise especially often if you modify the script.
I would submit that, if you have enough levels of nested blocks that "match brace" becomes a cumbersome and "inefficient" tool, then your problem is that your code is overly-complex and poorly-structured, not any issue with the language or the editor. Good code does not have 47-level-deep nested blocks.
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
