I'd rather not add {/}, or begin/end, because it's easy to determine the beginning of the block, it's just closing it that we need a symbol for.
In terms of style, you can certainly indent the period on it's own line if you prefer:
elements.each(el =>
$(el).click(event =>
if el.hidden
el.highlight()
.
.)
.)
But I'd love to hear more suggestions for alternatives.Sounds good that you are going to give significant indentation a try.
Here's a question for you. In Python, if you have a couple of nested lambdas with multiline bodies, getting passed into each other as arguments, do you have to write the closing parenthesis on the correctly-indented line on the other side, or can it be tucked against the inner lambda?
In a hypothetical significant-whitespace CoffeeScript, I'm thinking of this:
elements.each(el =>
el.click(event =>
el.show()))
Versus this: elements.each(el =>
el.click(event =>
el.show()
)
)
Is the second form required to make Python-style whitespace work? a = [
1,
2,
3]Edit: Alright, got a branch that starts with a little significant whitespace going here:
http://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/tree/whitespace
It can't handle the first of the two cases mentioned above just yet, but it compiles the second one correctly.
My take on the blocks is that significant whitespace seems to be a natural expression of blocks for your language and fits quite nicely with the aesthetics of the other forms. (The terminal ... choo choo train is not a winning idea.)
(I finally made it to the end of the article where you ask about block delimiting...)
I think there are two issues, one being that '........' at the end of a large nested expression is ugly, the other being that it's hard to find the start and end of a block as it stands.
Since you seem to borrow a lot from ruby, why not add {} and/or begin/end as options? I would definitely keep the period syntax around (for short, shallow blocks), rather than replacing it.
"aint"? Cute.