[parenscript-devel] Implicit return for function bodies

[Vladimir Sedach]

Done.

2009/12/3 Daniel Gackle <danielgackle at gmail.com>:
> Just to follow up on this point:
>
> < Regarding try/catch, I'm still on the fence. Anyone have try/catch use
> cases where implicit return is not what would be wanted? >
>
> It seems pretty clear to me that there should be implicit return inside
> CATCH blocks. After all, there is implicit return inside TRY, and by
> definition, the code was never able to actually execute that return.
> Something ought to take its place. We have three or four usages where we've
> had to hack an explicit return back into our PS, just so that an error
> object makes it out of CATCH.
>
> Equally important, it seems to me, is that FINALLY blocks *not* provide
> implicit return. Either a TRY or CATCH has already specified a return value;
> FINALLY is usually for tying up loose ends, not overriding the return value.
> In other words, I think the existing behavior around FINALLY is good.
>
> If no one objects, can you go ahead and put implicit return into CATCH so I
> can take out our hack?
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Vladimir Sedach <vsedach at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've just pushed a patch that should address all the issues raised so
>> far in this thread. Thank you for the QA Scott!
>>
>> Regarding try/catch, I'm still on the fence. Anyone have try/catch use
>> cases where implicit return is not what would be wanted?
>>
>> Vladimir
>>
>> 2009/11/5  <sblist at me.com>:
>> > Vladimir and friends,
>> >
>> > In the following example, do you think that both
>> > the try block and the handler blocks should receive
>> > an explicit return?
>> >
>> > I'm not absolutely convinced, but I think that it
>> > probably should.
>> >
>> > PS> (ps (lambda () (try (foo) (:catch (e) e))))
>> > =>
>> > "function () {
>> >     try {
>> >         return foo();
>> >     } catch (e) {
>> >         e;
>> >     };
>> > };"
>> >
>> > - Scott
>> >
>> > On 2009-11-04, at 12:57 PM, Vladimir Sedach wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> Many of you have been asking for this for a long time, and based on
>> >> feedback (as well as my own experience) the lack of this feature has
>> >> been the biggest cause of bugs in PS code, so it's with a bit of joy
>> >> that I just pushed out a patch to add implicit returns to PS functions
>> >> (including lambdas and flet/labels) to the repository just now. Please
>> >> try it out and report any bugs you find!
>> >>
>> >> Thank you,
>> >> Vladimir
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> parenscript-devel mailing list
>> >> parenscript-devel at common-lisp.net
>> >> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > parenscript-devel mailing list
>> > parenscript-devel at common-lisp.net
>> > http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> parenscript-devel mailing list
>> parenscript-devel at common-lisp.net
>> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> parenscript-devel mailing list
> parenscript-devel at common-lisp.net
> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
>
>