🚀 go-pugleaf

Stephen Baynes <baynes@ukpsshp1.serigate.philips.nl> wrote:
>How about using the 'else' keyword:
>
>int fn() ret
>{
> if(some_error_condition()) { 
>     ret=-1; 
> }else{
>     /* ... */
> }
>}

That doesn't express the intended flow of control.  The intention is
that if some_error_condition() then the function returns an error
indication immediately.  The above code says "if there is an error, set
the return value to -1, otherwise do /* ... */".  This is completely
different.  It's also ugly to have the main body of the code, which is
intended to be executed under "normal" circumstances (i.e. non-error),
in a conditional.

>It is a much better way to do it anyway even in current C as it makes
>maitenace simpler (consider adding code to end of function to be done
>on all returns).

Often one doesn't want that for error returns, and the alternative with
a goto (or break, in some cases) is understandable.  You're right here
in some cases, but return parameters don't make that any easier.

-zefram