🚀 go-pugleaf

Christopher R. Volpe (volpe@bart.crd.ge.com) wrote:
: 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
-snip-
: >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.

I think you answer your own question. A goto-ish return is one that is
equivalent to a goto to the end of the function.

Note that in my understanding the proposal is not removing the return 
keyword - just removing the need for it in many cases.

--
Stephen Baynes                              baynes@mulsoc2.serigate.philips.nl
Philips Semiconductors Ltd
Southampton                                 My views are my own.
United Kingdom