No return statement is kind of an explicit indication that the function does not return anything. This is at least how we know it from a lot of other languages. Thus at least for me as a previous C++ programmer it seemed pretty natural.
Am Mittwoch, 25. Mai 2016 23:50:50 UTC+2 schrieb Jeff Bezanson: > > If we want to change this, I also like the simplicity of Stefan's > proposal. However, on the whole I agree with Didier and prefer keeping > things as they are. Automatically adding `return nothing` can be seen > as making `nothing` the "default return value", which implies that > returning nothing is a good thing. I also don't feel it answers the > "explicit is better than implicit" objection that started this thread, > since the value being returned would not be evident in the code. > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 3:09 PM, 'Tobias Knopp' via julia-users > <julia...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>> wrote: > > I like Stefans idea. Would be great to open an issue for that on github. > > > > Tobi > > > > > > Am Mittwoch, 25. Mai 2016 15:23:22 UTC+2 schrieb Michael Borregaard: > >> > >> To me, the suggested change seems to conflict intuitively with julia > >> syntax. When using Julia at the REPL all expressions return a value, > which > >> is confusing at first when coming from othe languages but quickly > becomes a > >> feature. That a function also returns the value of the last statement > seems > >> consistent with this. > >> Also, a common use of multiple dispatch is to have methods that modify > >> arguments then call another method of the same name defining the basic > >> functionality. Eg. > >> > >> function foo(x::SomeType) > >> ... > >> end > >> > >> function foo(x::SomeOtherType) > >> y = dostufftogetsometype(x) > >> foo(y) > >> end > >> > >> where this syntax seems intuitive. >
