In article <9607240953.AA00610@sparc3.nextsolution.co.jp>
christo@nextsolution.co.jp (Frank Christoph) writes:

>   No, although that would be nice too.  :) I mean an indentation
> convention for lexical scoping.  For example, instead of

> if x = y then (do_a; if x = z then do_b) else do_the_other_thing
> 
> write:
> 
> if x = y then	do_a;
> 		if x = z then do_b
> 	 else	do_the_other_thing
> 

> Here the lexical analyzer can determine that the else-clause belongs
> to the first "if" because the position of the "else" is to the left
> of the second "if" (off-side) and thus must belong to an outer
> scope.

Hmm, I sincerely hope the Caml team will _not_ follow this suggestion,
or at the very least leaves an escape in the form of a compiler switch
for those of us who dislike it.

It is a religious issue, and I see little point in repating the
arguments made many times before in comp.compilers, among other
places.  I recognize the points of the other side, but this would be a
fundamental change in how the language `looks and feels' and so I
think prudence should prevail and scoping by keywords should be
preserved.

-- 
                  +-------------------------------------------+
                  I When the dead are left to bury the dead,  I
                  I the living remain alone.  Arthur Koestler I
                  +-------------------------------------------+