On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 10:30:32AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 10:09:22AM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > > The clue is "If a sub wants to return an lvalue, it must B<be> an
> > > lvalue". Therefore I propose a new keyword C<lreturn> that behaves
> > > just like C<return>, but returns the lvalue instead of the rvalue. After
> > > returning, everything is exactly as if the argument to lreturn were
> > > specified instead of the subroutine call. The <:lvalue> property is no
> > > longer needed and should be removed sine it only causes confusion. A
> > > subroutine B<is> not an lvalue thing, it B<returns> an lvalue if it
> > > wants to.
> >
> > Amen.
> >
> > (Tagging a sub to _always_ be an lvalue runs very counter to the flexible
> > context concept of Perl, witness the want()).
>
> But why introduce a new keyword "lreturn"? What about something like
> this?
>
> sub foo {
> my $lvalue : lvalue;
> ...
> return $lvalue if want('LVALUE');
> }
Error proneness? (Is that a word?)
sub foo {
my $lvalue;
...
return $lvalue if want('LVALUE');
}
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
