Re: Dylan stuff

Hi,

On 17/01/2013 09:25, mikel evins wrote:
> 
> On Jan 17, 2013, at 2:22 AM, Bruce Mitchener wrote:
> 
>> The main thing missing there is having names for the return values
>> (which have no meaning and are largely for documentation value).
> 
> It would be easy enough to do that, too:
> 
> (define sealed method foo ((x <fixnum>)(y <fixnum>)) => ((answer
> <fixnum>) (success? <boolean>) #rest more-parts) (begin 
> (do-stuff-to-x) ...))
> 
> The only issue, really, is whether that's better or worse. In favor,
> it adds more information about the programmer's intentions. Opposed,
> it makes things quite a bit more verbose, and the additional names
> have no functional use.

my experience is that it is hard to explain/justify to other programmers
why there are unused names for return values.

Also, when writing code myself I most of the time use "res" or "result"
as return names, which is pretty useless for documentation purposes.

So, overall I wouldn't bother with names for return values.


Cheers,

Hannes
_______________________________________________
hackers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opendylan.org/mailman/listinfo/hackers