🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1406@l.cc.purdue.edu>, cik@l.cc (Herman Rubin) writes:
>In article <1207@quintus.UUCP>, pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte) writes:
>> There's a big problem with this:  you have an expression that's no good
>> for anything but putting on the right side of an assignment.  What good
>> are expressions if you can't nest them?
>
>That YOU cannot see a use for them is irrelevant at best.  Enough people
>have posted that they can see a use for this aspect of computer language
>to include it.  I will not object to your including something in the
>language which I might not think even appropriate.

I see the point of multiple returns, but agree with Peter than having
them allowed only in a restricted context is a big problem.

>There are times for elegance and times not to have elegance.  I will not
>use an elegant definition if it obscures the concept.  I will not use a
>short elegant proof, in general, if the understanding of the theorem is
>compromised.

Doesn't elegance imply clarity and understanding? How can something
obscure and unfathomable be elegant?

I don't believe that multiple returns are at all difficult. You need
garbage collection since you're passing stuctures out of scope,
that's all.

>Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907

		Nick.
--
Nick Rothwell,	Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh.
		nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk    <Atlantic Ocean>!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!nick
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
               Fais que ton reve soit plus long que la nuit.