From: Louis-Philippe <default@...>
Date: 2008-12-13T05:21:57+09:00
Subject: Re: parallel method return value

------=_Part_16229_16188157.1229113742236
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Thanks Matthew,

    "No, because what was provided before wasn't wrong."

Yeah... I believe you, but would really like it to be else!

L-P

2008/12/12 Matthew Moss <matt@moss.name>

>
> On Dec 12, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Louis-Philippe wrote:
>
>  Hi guys,
>>
>> Thanks for your answer,I get your points...
>> but in this case, what I really want to do is have the method return the
>> right number of values for the corresponding quantity of lvalues presented
>> to it, to make it context sensitive you know, so I can have, for example,
>> a
>> boolean first return value when it is called with one lvalue and a boolean
>> plus a string when called with two rvalue.  The assignment operator does
>> it,
>> so I would have expected the same behaviour to also work with a method.
>>
>
> But as was pointed out, methods _always_ return one value, even if it
> appears to return multiple values. They are lumped together into one array.
>
>  right now my options are:
>>
>> a, = a_method
>>
>> or
>>
>> a = a_method[0]
>>
>> both ways still involve to ask for only one to return.  What I am looking
>> for, if it exist, is for the method to automatically detect context and
>> act
>> from it like the = operator.  I find how the assignment operator
>> implements
>> this is very elegant, and am crave it for methods!!
>>
>
> There isn't any way for the method call to recognize the context in which
> it is being called. You'd have to pass an argument, such as the "number of
> return values" to return.
>
>    a, b = a_method(2)
>    a = a_method(1)
>
> Which seems pointless, when you can instead do what you've already
> identified as the proper technique:
>
>    a, = a_method
>    a, b = a_method
>    a, b, c = a_method
>    # etc.
>
>  Anybody can prove this wrong?  (please!!)
>>
>
> No, because what was provided before wasn't wrong.
>
>
>

------=_Part_16229_16188157.1229113742236--