On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 02:13 JJ Merelo <jjmer...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > El jue., 4 oct. 2018 a las 3:36, Trey Harris (<t...@lopsa.org>) escribió: > >> _All_ routines in Perl 6 return _something._ A lack of a "-->" simply >> indicates stylistically that the return is not useful because it's whatever >> "falls off the end". (There's a bit of variance here as I'm not sure it's a >> convention everyone has followed.) It's equivalent to "--> Mu" because >> anything that could "fall of the end" is Mu. >> > > No, it means that it's not constrained to a type. It can still return > something, but it can be anything. >
I get all that, except for the "No" at the front. ;-) Or were you talking about the "not useful" bit? Yes, of course in any given codebase, the lack of a return value has no more or less meaning than a lack of any constraint. The programmer may not like using constraints at all and treats Perl 6 like Perl 5 in the respect of wanting arbitrarily mungible values. But the word "stylistically" was important, as I was responding to Todd's question about the docs—I think a lack of a return value in the docs (at least, the ones I could come up with in a grep pattern on my checkout of docs) does tend to indicate that the return is not useful, that the routine is a "procedure" run for its side effects rather than for evaluation. Is that what you meant? If you were saying in "it can still return something, but can be anything", that "anything ⊃ (is a strict superset of) `Mu`", then I don't understand, because I thought all values conformed to Mu.
