> Am 26.01.2017 um 08:11 schrieb Clément Bera <bera.clem...@gmail.com>: > > The "CAN'T REACH" comment is there because execution never reach that part of > the code. If you write code there, it will never be executed. The process > code performs a return without pushing any value on stack. > Because you return from the sender, right?
> Signalling an error is safe if the error is never resumed. But you'll need > the returnNoValue for performance intensive modification tracking. > > Ok, while you are popping of the stack there is no way to return, right? I cannot see what it has to be that way but I can see that my approach cannot work this way. In my case the error is resumed because not resuming would defeat the purpose of having transparent modification tracking. I'll use announcements for it because it is a better fit for that anyway. Norbert > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisi...@gmail.com > <mailto:dionisi...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > 2017-01-25 22:24 GMT+01:00 Denis Kudriashov <dionisi...@gmail.com > <mailto:dionisi...@gmail.com>>: > For the Process hack, it's because the call-back was designed to return no > value. > > Now I am confused. > Why anybody needs to return value from this method? > And why there is "CAN'T REACH" comment at the end of method? > Do you mean that method should never return? > > It may look like it works when returning a value but you will have uncommon > crashes. > > And is it safe to just signal error? >
