Return is all about providing a value *when used transitively*. When used intransitively, it's about moving yourself. There's nothing about the latter sense that implies providing a value.
Which is not to say Richard did not overstate the case - "return needn't necessarily (in English) suggest providing a value" would be more correct, but isn't that far from a charitable interpretation of what he'd said. On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Donn Cave <d...@avvanta.com> wrote: > quoth Richard A. O'Keefe, > ... > > If you're familiar with *English* rather than, say, the C family of > > programming languages, "return" isn't _that_ bad, there is certainly > > nothing about the word that suggests providing a value. > > The RFC822 headers of your email suggest that you use a Macintosh computer, > so apart from the apparently disputable question of whether you're familiar > with English, you have the same online dictionary as mine. Second > definition: > "give, put, or send (something) back to a place or person", with examples > "she returned his kiss", usage from tennis and football, verdicts, etc. > Third definition: "yield or make a profit", fourth (re)elect a person or > party. > "Return" is all about providing a value, in English. > > When a term like "return" is used in a computer programming language in > a sense that confounds any prior expectation based on English or other > programming languages, that's the opposite of "intuitive". It "is what > it is", and it's silly to talk about changing it at this point, but that > doesn't mean that we have to turn the notion of "intuitive" on its head. > > Donn > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe