Re: Syntax and redundancy

[Gavin Wraith <gavin@...>]

In message <a542ea6105082810204b6d9cd3@mail.gmail.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
> mandatory.
> 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 (gavin@wra1th.plus.com)
Home page: http://www.wra1th.plus.com/