Matthew wrote:

> Pointless sugar.
> 
> Sorry
> 

pointless remark,

sorry



not speaking about this particular case, but there are lots of thingies in a programming language that are meant as sugar,

e.g. in D there are multiple ways of defining:
	- function pointers
	- templates
	- ...
	or delegates, and the list goes on

bye,
roel

In article <bvj62m$2tvl$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Roel Mathys says...
>
>Matthew wrote:
>
>> Pointless sugar.
>> 
>> Sorry
>> 
>
>pointless remark,
>
>sorry
>
>
>
>not speaking about this particular case, but there are lots of thingies in a programming language that are meant as sugar,
>
Ah, but not _pointless_ sugar.

Y.Tomino wrote:

> 
> And return is one of jump statements.
> Although I don't dislike a jump statement, I don't want to use it where jump
> is unnecessary.
> Even if result introduced, the compatibility will be kept if return will set
> result before exit.
> 
> Thanks.
> YT
> 

I think everybody can agree that it's just sugar, which is fine, really.  Everything above machine code is technically sugar, it's just a matter of how much work that sugar does for you.

Is there any case where adding this to the language would save more than two lines of code?  Two very simple, obvious lines of code, no less.  I don't think so.  So, to be blunt, why bother?

 -- andy

One man's pointless is another man's crusade.  It's all personal opinion, and should be taken as such.  At least it didn't take much time to read his reply!

Sean

The one Haranguer wrote:
| In article <bvj62m$2tvl$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Roel Mathys says...
||
|| Matthew wrote:
||
||| Pointless sugar.
|||
||| Sorry
|||
||
|| pointless remark,
||
|| sorry
||
||
||
|| not speaking about this particular case, but there are lots of
|| thingies in a programming language that are meant as sugar,
||
| Ah, but not _pointless_ sugar.

It does nothing for my ego control that my succinct, but entirely on-point, response has spawned discussion at a current ratio of 86:3.

:)

"Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean@verizon.net> wrote in message news:bvjn05$ob7$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> One man's pointless is another man's crusade.  It's all personal opinion, and should be taken as such.  At least it didn't take much time to read
his
> reply!
>
> Sean
>
> The one Haranguer wrote:
> | In article <bvj62m$2tvl$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Roel Mathys says...
> ||
> || Matthew wrote:
> ||
> ||| Pointless sugar.
> |||
> ||| Sorry
> |||
> ||
> || pointless remark,
> ||
> || sorry
> ||
> ||
> ||
> || not speaking about this particular case, but there are lots of
> || thingies in a programming language that are meant as sugar,
> ||
> | Ah, but not _pointless_ sugar.
>
>

Matthew wrote:
> It does nothing for my ego control that my succinct, but entirely on-point,
> response has spawned discussion at a current ratio of 86:3.
> 
> :)
> 
> "Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:bvjn05$ob7$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>One man's pointless is another man's crusade.  It's all personal opinion,
>>and should be taken as such.  At least it didn't take much time to read
> 
> his
> 
>>reply!
>>
>>Sean
>>
>>The one Haranguer wrote:
>>| In article <bvj62m$2tvl$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Roel Mathys says...
>>||
>>|| Matthew wrote:
>>||
>>||| Pointless sugar.
>>|||
>>||| Sorry
>>|||
>>||
>>|| pointless remark,
>>||
>>|| sorry
>>||
>>||
>>||
>>|| not speaking about this particular case, but there are lots of
>>|| thingies in a programming language that are meant as sugar,
>>||
>>| Ah, but not _pointless_ sugar.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
10 points for you (on a scale of ...) :-)

see ya,
rm

If you want to boost that, do a one-character reply next time.  ;)

Sean

Matthew wrote:
| It does nothing for my ego control that my succinct, but entirely
| on-point, response has spawned discussion at a current ratio of 86:3.
|
| :)

Everyone will call "return" as syntax sugar, supposing "result" was
implemented previously.
I'm sorry.

YT

k

"Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean@verizon.net> wrote in message news:bvjs4s$11bf$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> If you want to boost that, do a one-character reply next time.  ;)
>
> Sean
>
> Matthew wrote:
> | It does nothing for my ego control that my succinct, but entirely
> | on-point, response has spawned discussion at a current ratio of 86:3.
> |
> | :)
>
>

Y.Tomino wrote:
> Everyone will call "return" as syntax sugar, supposing "result" was
> implemented previously.

Right.  Either can be easily simulated with the other.

> I'm sorry.
> 

Don't be.  It's better to have the ideas out in the open than never even considered.

 -- andy