From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@...>
Date: 2007-06-04T23:50:36+09:00
Subject: Re: Introducing the "it" keyword

On 04.06.2007 16:31, Eleanor McHugh wrote:
> On 3 Jun 2007, at 20:45, Robert Klemme wrote:
>> On 03.06.2007 19:47, Eleanor McHugh 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...
>>
>> In Ruby there is no such thing.  Every method returns something - even 
>> if it's nil.
> 
> That's true.

No, nil!  SCNR :-)

> But how many of us are in the habit of doing so explicitly 
> with 'return nil'? Having to do that in this particular circumstance 
> adds an extra element of surprise to the language.

True, I should have read the bit above your statement more thoroughly. 
You are right of course.  I'm against this "it" anyway, so...

Kind regards

	robert