Hi Paul,
Paul Vixie wrote:
> Raymond Wan <r...@kuicr.kyoto-u.ac.jp> writes:
>
>>>>> if (not $success) {
>>>>> return $m->comp('/BAR', %ARGS);
>>>>> }
>>> "return" as shown here does nothing to the output that was already sent by
>>> the components called before this one (for example your preamble/headings),
>>> and does nothing to prevent the component who called this one from sending
>> Thank you for your explanation! I never knew about the difference
>> between the two. Actually, I never knew that "return" could take a URL
>> as an argument.
>
> return isn't taking a URL as an argument. in fact the function's return
> value is meaningless, and the real intent is to call $m->comp() and then
> immediately return. this:
>
> if (not $success) {
> return $m->comp('/BAR', %ARGS);
> }
>
> is shorthand for this:
>
> if (not $success) {
> $m->comp('/BAR', %ARGS);
> return;
> }
Ah, thank you! I mean the equivalence between the two sets of statements is
surely not a Perl-thing but something introduced by Mason? [Of course, nothing
wrong with that...so is the notion of components and many other things.]
But yes, I see what you mean and thanks a lot -- I wouldn't have figured that
out and was just going to accept that Mason's version of return is taking a URL
as an argument...
Ray
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
Mason-users mailing list
Mason-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mason-users
