Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!ucsd!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!otter!esh
From: esh@otter.hple.hp.com (Sean Hayes)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: FOR loops
Message-ID: <2400014@otter.hple.hp.com>
Date: 14 Apr 88 09:46:59 GMT
References: <2853@enea.se>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK.
Lines: 19

In article <YWK3hUy00VA88IO0UA@andrew.cmu.edu> jk3k+@andrew.cmu.edu (Joe Keane) writes:
>While i'm at childish flaming, i might as well say that i _really_ hate `fi',
>`rof', `esac', and `elihw'.  Can anyone say they're a good idea and keep a
>straight face?

Me too.  "They're a good idea."  :-|

Ok, maybe they're not that good, but at least they are obvious. I liked the Algol 68 notion
of allowing parentheses as an alternative when it made things clearer.

The closing of blocks of code with a delimiter is a must. The only viable alternative is 
Landins "offside rule", which forces the correct indentation. I don't know if this has been
tried in an imperative language.

Sean,


 _________________________________________________________________________
 |Sean Hayes,          Hewlett Packard Laboratories,      Bristol,  England|
 |net: esh@hplb.uucp   esh%shayes@hplabs.HP.COM       ..!mcvax!ukc!hplb!esh|