I also prefer it, and I think some coding patterns may require it e.g. in templates where sometimes we want to specialize into a void function, and other times into a function that returns a value. However, this is rarely needed in practice. Without being able to return void, writing such a template will be a pain if not impossible.
Mark > On Feb 20, 2019, at 7:26 AM, Saam Barati <sbar...@apple.com> wrote: > > I prefer it as well. > > - Saam > > On Feb 20, 2019, at 6:58 AM, Chris Dumez <cdu...@apple.com > <mailto:cdu...@apple.com>> wrote: > >> I also prefer allowed returning void. >> >> Chris Dumez >> >> On Feb 19, 2019, at 10:35 PM, Daniel Bates <dba...@webkit.org >> <mailto:dba...@webkit.org>> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 19, 2019, at 9:42 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org >>> <mailto:rn...@webkit.org>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 8:59 PM Daniel Bates <dba...@webkit.org >>>> <mailto:dba...@webkit.org>> wrote: >>>> > On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Daniel Bates <dba...@webkit.org >>>> > <mailto:dba...@webkit.org>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Hi all, >>>> > >>>> > Something bothers me about code like: >>>> > >>>> > void f(); >>>> > void g() >>>> > { >>>> > if (...) >>>> > return f(); >>>> > return f(); >>>> > } >>>> > >>>> > I prefer: >>>> > >>>> > void g() >>>> > { >>>> > if (...) { >>>> > f(); >>>> > return >>>> > } >>>> > f(); >>>> > } >>>> > >>>> Based on the responses it seems there is sufficient leaning to codify >>>> the latter style. >>>> >>>> I don't think there is a sufficient consensus as far as I can tell. Geoff >>> >>> I didn't get this from Geoff's remark. Geoff wrote: >>> >>> ***“return f()” when f returns void is a bit mind bending.*** >>> Don't want to put words in Geoff's mouth. So, Geoff can you please confirm: >>> for the former style, for the latter style, no strong opinion. >>> >>>> and Alex both expressed preferences for being able to return void, >>> >>> I got this from Alex's message >>> >>>> and Saam pointed out that there is a lot of existing code which does this. >>> >>> I did not get this. He wrote emphasis mine: >>> >>> I've definitely done this in JSC. ***I don't think it's super common***, >>> but I've also seen code in JSC not written by me that also does this. >>> >>>> Zalan also said he does this in his layout code. >>> >>> I did not get this, quoting, emphasis mine: >>> >>> I use this idiom too in the layout code. I guess I just prefer a more >>> compact code. >>> ***(I don't feel too strongly about it though)*** >>> >>> By the way, you even acknowledged that "WebKit ... tend[s] to have a >>> separate return.". So, I inferred you were okay with it. But from this >>> email I am no longer sure what your position is. Please state it clearly. >>> >>>> - R. Niwa >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> webkit-dev mailing list >>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org <mailto:webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org> >>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev >>> <https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev> >> _______________________________________________ >> webkit-dev mailing list >> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org <mailto:webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org> >> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev >> <https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev> > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
