From: Robert Dober <robert.dober@...>
Date: 2007-06-04T14:09:44+09:00
Subject: Re: Introducing the "it" keyword

On 6/3/07, Eleanor McHugh <eleanor@games-with-brains.com> wrote:
> On 31 May 2007, at 06:35, Robert Dober wrote:
> > But maybe things should really by simple
> >
> > return if x > 42
> > return unless (x+1)%2 == 0 # not zero? here
> >
> > could probably made syntactically work (differently than now) and
> > return the LHS of the expression iff the expression evaluates to true
> > or false respectively.
>
> Unfortunately this would greatly complicate the situation in which a
> return without value is intended...
That does not exist :)
Therefore the only tread off would be to write

return nil if/unless whatever which would be an equivalent to nowadays

return if/unless

But I am not advocating this change into the language it was just an
idea in a crazy discussion ;)



Cheers
Robert

>
>
>


-- 
You see things; and you say Why?
But I dream things that never were; and I say Why not?
-- George Bernard Shaw