On Mar 5, 2006, at 7:58 PM, Thomas Cunningham wrote:
I respect your right to disagree, and your point is valid, but I feel
a need to pick one nit -- failing to return true may always be an
error in YOUR code, but it's generally not in my code. I sometimes
omit the return statement intentionally; since it's done
intentionally, based on the documented behavior of the language, and
has the effect I want, it is not an error.
Ah come on now. This behavior is not documented anywhere I can see.
The
language reference for a function is silent on the fact that the
return type
is not required. The fact that Rb simply *allows* this does make
your code
any more correct or *document* it.
The Language Reference isn't silent on the issue. The 4th Note under
Function, where it documents the default return in the absence of a
Return statement, is clear documentation that a Return statement is
not required, in my view.
Best,
Jack
_______________________________________________
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>
