Aaron Sherman wrote:
No, that was most of the point. &foo did not declare a return type, and
while my code was simplistic, we obviously cannot be certain what &foo
might return in the general case.
Sorry that I've spoiled that. But I wonder if it's just in the examples
here on the list or a general laxity to not specify a return type of
subs and methods. I consider leaving it to the compiler to infer it bad
style. BTW, what is the default return type? Just Void? Is an explicit
return statement than a compile error?
--
TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)
