🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3vg8l8$5sd@myst.plaza.ds.adp.com>, whm@news (Bill Morrison) writes
+  I respectfully disagree.  I much prefer the independence of the current
+  C specification.  When I call your function q(), I like that I can use any
+  names I choose for the values to an from your q().  I certainly don't like
+  the idea that the returned value of l be automatically returned without
+  an explicit return(l) statement.  
+
+  int myCaller() {
+     char myK;
+     int myL;
+     myL=q(myK);
+     ...
+   }

I am sorrie, if my quite arbitrarie syntax led to the notion that I want
"l" known as far abroad as "q" is known:
 	int q(char k) l
 	{	....
 		l = 3;
 		....
 	}
That was not the idea.  The return-parameter is known onlie there where
this "k" is known.

As for coupling function-return and the valu to return, there is no
logical connection, and I hav known cases wherin I heartilie wishd that
they were separat.  Furthermore, it is not good that a "goto"ish thing
is _needed_ for valu-return.