>>> http://realsoftware.com/feedback/viewreport.php?reportid=fawnkmzi >> >> I'm not sure I do want that... > > Really? What would be the downside? Seems to me, a routine that is declared > as a function that does not return a value is an error plain and simple.
No, RB allows you to omit the return statement. There is no downside if the check is optional (whether it's a warning or an error isn't crucial). Even if you import code that doesn't have return statements, you can simply turn off the option and you're in the same unprotected boat you are in now. One hopes that people who publish third-party code would get into the habit of using the option. > This would basically render a Event that returns a value to be > useless since all of those events must have some code. Not at all; the check would simply ignore functions that are effectively empty. lj _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives of this list here: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
