[E-Lang] E Project, Documentation, and new programmers

Mark S. Miller markm@caplet.com
Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:59:26 -0700


At 11:43 AM Thursday 4/12/01, Dan Bornstein wrote:
>Okay, then, here's possibly a better way to state the proposal:
>
>    Every method definition should have an implicit binding of the
>    identifier "return" to an escape function which, if called, returns
>    from the method with the given value, and there should not be any
>    implicit return value from a method (that is, falling off the end
>    of a *method*--not just any block--is tantamount to returning null).

Well, it's certainly a better way to state this, as I didn't even understand 
that you were proposing this.  In any case, isn't this one of the proposals 
we considered and rejected back in the unary-^ discussions?  (Rooted 
http://www.eros-os.org/~majordomo/e-lang/0844.html , 
http://www.eros-os.org/~majordomo/e-lang/0895.html , and 
http://www.eros-os.org/~majordomo/e-lang/0969.html .)



        Cheers,
        --MarkM