>>One could argue that do{} should take return so it might have a value, >>but this will definitely annoy the C programmers. >So what. So what is that it *already* annoys us, which is *why* we would like to last out of a do. Perhaps you should be able to last out if a retval isn't wanted (as in do {} while) but should return out if one is? Or maybe a last should be an undef return? --tom
- The distinction between "do BLOCK while COND&qu... Bart Lateur
- Re: The distinction between "do BLOCK whil... Peter Scott
- Re: The distinction between "do BLOCK ... Nathan Torkington
- Re: The distinction between "do BL... Tom Christiansen
- Re: The distinction between "d... Bart Lateur
- Re: The distinction between &q... Tom Christiansen
- Re: The distinction betwee... Christopher J. Madsen
- Re: The distinction be... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: The distinction be... Christopher J. Madsen
- Re: The distinction be... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: The distinction be... Tom Christiansen
- Re: The distinction be... Christopher J. Madsen
- Re: The distinction be... Tom Christiansen
- Re: The distinction be... Christopher J. Madsen
- do BLOCK as inline sub... Uri Guttman
- Re: The distinction between "d... Peter Scott