From that very email written by Joe himself: > In the absence of return(X) you can write throw(X) but this can make your > programs more difficult to understand if abused.
This EEP was written because the need for an early-return mechanism is *pervasive* among all codebases. Even I, who never used Erlang, has been frustrated by inappropriate amounts of nested case statements. So the alternative you suggest to Fred's proposal is a bit of a Catch-22: "use non-local returns for nested cases which happen all the time, but don't use them all the time because it makes your programs more difficult to understand". > Le 7 déc. 2018 à 14:58, Raimo Niskanen <[email protected]> a écrit : > > This has been debated before. Here is a post from Joe Armstrong in the > middle of a long thread about this: _______________________________________________ eeps mailing list [email protected] http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/eeps
