[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Syntax and redundancy
- From: Gavin Wraith <gavin@...>
- Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 21:31:19 +0100
In message <email@example.com> you wrote:
> > I would not have objected if each kind of 'end' had
> > been given its own token, or would that have been
> > too reminiscent of prim old Pascal?
> The `end-sth' property is present in Ada, Dylan and other
> languages. In some of them the additional word is not
> Another option is the ending word being the reverse of
> the opening one: if -- fi, do -- od etc. Example is Algol 68.
I always thought that very ugly.
> As for Pascal, it has neither of these. There, the body of
> a control statement is just another statement, simple or
> compound (begin -- end). An exception of this rule
> (which introduces a bit of inconsistency in the language)
> is the repeat -- end loop.
My apologies to Pascal. It is a long time since I was exposed
to it, but I remember it as verbose.
Gavin Wraith (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Home page: http://www.wra1th.plus.com/