Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about extending ".return" to cover these:
> .return foo(x, ...) # tail function call > .return o.foo(x, ...) # tail method call > Otherwise, it may be easier to miss the fact that the call also does a > return. (This is close to what I suggested in the "Returning varying > numbers of results from a tail call" thread of 22-Feb-05, but on > reflection I think it would be better not to introduce another > "dot-keyword.") Looks really nice and makes clear that the tailcall is a return from the sub. I like it. > -- Bob Rogers > http://rgrjr.dyndns.org/ leo
