Re: assign to magic name-of-function variable instead of "return"

[Peter Scott]

At 09:59 AM 2/7/01 -0500, John Porter wrote:
>Tony Olekshy wrote:
> >
> > I think "always" should be part of an explicit statement, such
> > as "try", not some implied property of block structure introduced
> > by a dangling clause (inside or outside).
>
>Why?  For that matter, why must "try" itself be explicit?
>It says, "I'm probly gonna put some exception catchers on this block,
>so if I do, choke fatally if I haven't put the magic word up here."
>This strikes me as exceedingly un-Perlish, though of course quite
>natural in B&D languages like C++ and Java.

I want the 'try' there for my sake, not Perl's; I don't care whether some 
other languages couldn't parse the block without the word, but for me, it 
helps alert me that the following block is subject to non-local control 
flow rules.

I'd rather have the 'try' there for the same reason I want to see the 'do' 
in "do { ... } while ..." (well, leaving aside the fact that it would be 
unparseable without it).  But I certainly understand your preference.

--
Peter Scott
Pacific Systems Design Technologies