On Sep 13, 6:18 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick R. Michaud) wrote: > On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 09:07:00AM -0700, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote: > > I propose to make IMCC a bit stricter and have it enforce to use the > > appropriate closing directive. So, close .pcc_begin_return with a > > .pcc_end_return directive, and likewise for _yield directives. > > > (on a side note, instead of using ".return" directives in a yield block, we > > could introduce ".yield" directive, making it even more explicit that it's a > > yield statement) > > Just a note that IMCC/PIR already has a ".yield" directive. > > Pm
Yes you're right. the .yield directive is used in short-hand yielding stuff, like so: .yield(1,2,3) In that sense, it's the same as .return(1,2,3), except that it's a yield statement :-) What I actually meant was that you can say: .pcc_begin_yield .yield 1 .yield 2 .yield 3 .pcc_end_yield Instead of writing the more confusing: .pcc_begin_yield .return 1 .return 2 .return 3 .pcc_end_yield. regards kjs
