I'm leaning towards +1 for the simpler cases, but referencing earlier (labeled) return expression values via `label._` syntax... doesn't feel like Groovy anymore, IMHO. OTOH, just because I wouldn't use it doesn't mean it's a bad idea.
So, if I've understood the proposal, I'd limit it to: * extend return statement to include form `return <expr1> if (<expr2>)` * the parentheses around <expr2> are optional * the <expr1> is evaluated first * the <expr2> can reference the value of <expr1> via an implicit variable * include short form `return? <expr1>` Earlier emails talked about supporting full closure syntax for <expr2>. Is this still included? If so, the implicit variable would naturally be the closure parameter (`it` usually). Would it make sense to use the `it` name even in "plain expression" form, instead of `_` or `$`? To me, `_` denotes an ignored parameter, and `$` looks like something internal added by some AST transform. Is the short form short for avoiding null return value, or short for Groovy truthiness check? All the use cases shown are for the former, but it feels like the latter (b/c it is short for an if clause). -mikko
