🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3ver2u$8bk@caip.rutgers.edu>, halasz@caip.rutgers.edu writes:
>What with all this stuff propozed for new standard C, one thing I want
>to see, the return-parameter.  A function is declared with a set of
>parameters meant to forward to it arugments passd in calling it.  The
>declaration for returning looks quite different, and there is no real
>need for "return" to return anithing.  Indeed, it were better if it not.
>
>Here I make up quite arbitrarie syntax:
>
>	int q(char k) l
>	{	....
>		l = 3;
>		....
>	}
>
>When "q" is through, the function returns the valu stord in "l".
>
>Fortran and Pascal s mistake was to name the return-parameter the same
>as the function, the basic idea is good.  This means that we can free
>us of the "goto"ish "return".

What's the point? What does your proposal provide that can't be achieved by
simply appending "return l;" to the body of the function? What's the
justification for your comment "Indeed, it were better if it not"?

What "goto-ish return" are you talking about? If you dislike the practice of
having multiple return statements in your functions, just use a regular goto
to the end of the function.  Any situation where this is necessary, it would
also be necessary under your scheme. Personally, I like the ability to
indicate to the person reading the code that we're exiting immediately from
the function right here, rather than making him search for a goto-label, or
adding obfuscating levels of conditional execution.

--

Chris Volpe				Phone: (518) 387-7766 (Dial Comm 8*833
GE Corporate R&D			Fax:   (518) 387-6560
PO Box 8, Schenectady, NY 12301		Email: volpecr@crd.ge.com