sergio masci wrote:

>> Olin Lathrop wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm pretty sure that if I had been required to type END or something
>>> more verbose than "}", the mistake would never have happened or I
>>> would have noticed it much quicker.
>> 
>> You can define preprocessor macros and use Begin and End instead of
>> { and }.
> 
> Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo......... </dispair>

I didn't say that I'd find it a good idea :)

> I've seen this done and had to live with it for a while.
> Really really REALLY bad idea.
> 
> Consider, defined are:
> 
> BEGIN	{
> END	{
> 
> IF if	(
> THEN	) {
> ELSE	} else {
> ENDIF	}
> 
> WHILE	while (
> DO	) {
> DONE	}
> 
> you find a piece of code that is several pages long and looks like:
> 
> 	IF ... THEN
> 
> 	... // several pages of code here
> 
> 	DONE
> 
> What's the intent of this code? Was it supposed to be a loop or a
> conditional? Did the original programmer have a brain fart while
> writing this, start out writing a conditional, changed his mind part
> way through and finished as if it were a loop (but forgot to go back
> and change the IF to a WHILE). Isn't the compiler supposed to give
> you a kick and force you to clarify this?

Ah... this wouldn't have happened with Pascal-style redefinitions.
Pascal, like C, treats all blocks alike, no matter the statement they're
associated with. In neither language you have a means to distinguish
them, like you do in BASIC. I haven't programmed enough with BASIC to be
able to say whether I'd like it.

Gerhard
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist