home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: interface-business.de!usenet
- From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.perl.misc,comp.lang.pascal.borland,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.cobol,comp.lang.c++.leda,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.basic.visual.3rdparty,alt.computer.workshop.live
- Subject: Re: PROGRAMERS OF ANY LANGUAGE
- Date: 14 Apr 1996 08:49:30 GMT
- Organization: Private BSD site, Dresden
- Message-ID: <4kqe6q$1tm@innocence.interface-business.de>
- References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960329010021.13209A-100000@harvey> <4k4pl2$pea@host1.einstein.com.ar> <316A6189.4287@wight.hursley.ibm.com> <4kg58c$djh@kalypso.cybercom.net>
- Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch)
- NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-uriah.interface-business.de
- X-Newsreader: knews 0.9.3
-
- stok@kalypso.cybercom.net (Michael J. Stok) writes:
-
- > The {}s shouldn't be optional! That's the route Perl took with blocks
- > after for, if, while, else etc. Just because C and similar languages
- > have the "optimisation" that they the {}s are optional doesn't mean it's
- > right :-)
-
- Just because Perl allows for the "optimisation" to put the "if" before
- or after the statement, and mandates the curlies _for one of the options_,
- doesn't make the code better per se. :-)
-
- --
- cheers, J"org
-
- joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE
- Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
-
-