On 9/3/16 12:03 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Saturday, September 03, 2016 14:42:34 Cauterite via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Saturday, 3 September 2016 at 14:25:49 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
I propose a slight change:
do(x, y, return z)
Hmm, I suppose I should mention one other motivation behind this
DIP:
I really like to avoid using the 'return' keyword inside
expressions, because I find it visually confusing - hear me out
here -
When you're reading a function and trying to understand its
control flow, one of the main elements you're searching for is
all the places the function can return from.
If the code has a lot of anonymous functions with return
statements this can really slow down the process as you have to
more carefully inspect every return to see if it's a 'real'
return or inside an anonymous function.
Also, in case it wasn't obvious, the do() syntax was inspired by
Clojure:
http://clojure.github.io/clojure/clojure.core-api.html#clojure.core/do
So, instead of having the return statement which everyone knows to look for
and is easy to grep for, you want to add a way to return _without_ a return
statement?
No, the amendment is to show that z is the "return" of the do
expression. It doesn't return from the function the do expression is in.
I also think that a) we shouldn't have a requirement, or support for,
return inside the expression -- return is not actually an expression,
it's a statement. This would be very confusing. b) I like the idea of
the semicolon to show that the last expression is different.
I'm not sure I agree with the general principal of the DIP though. I've
never liked comma expressions, and this seems like a waste of syntax.
Won't tuples suffice here when they take over the syntax? e.g. (x, y,
z)[$-1]
-Steve
