Aaron Sherman wrote:
No, that was most of the point. &foo did not declare a return type, and
while my code was simplistic, we obviously cannot be certain what &foo
might return in the general case.

Sorry that I've spoiled that. But I wonder if it's just in the examples here on the list or a general laxity to not specify a return type of subs and methods. I consider leaving it to the compiler to infer it bad style. BTW, what is the default return type? Just Void? Is an explicit return statement than a compile error? -- TSa (Thomas Sandla▀)

Reply via email to