www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - return in void functions

reply Thomas Kuehne <thomas-dloop kuehne.thisisspam.cn> writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

http://digitalmars.com/d/statement.html#return



return_01.d:












 cannot implicitly convert expression dummy() of type int to void


test case:
http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/run/return_01.d

Thomas

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.9.13 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBuAKf3w+/yD4P9tIRAkgkAKCHGuKCjlfCHCqr/BsrzWCwZtp06QCgwzXj
HpgFpl2Jv4TkX2FFl4EQA5w=
=TvmZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dec 08 2004
parent reply "Simon Buchan" <currently no.where> writes:
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 08:45:37 +0100, Thomas Kuehne  
<thomas-dloop kuehne.thisisspam.cn> wrote:


 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
 Hash: SHA1

 http://digitalmars.com/d/statement.html#return

 type.


 return_01.d:












 cannot implicitly convert expression dummy() of type int to void


 test case:
 http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/run/return_01.d

 Thomas

 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
 Version: GnuPG v1.9.13 (GNU/Linux)

 iD8DBQFBuAKf3w+/yD4P9tIRAkgkAKCHGuKCjlfCHCqr/BsrzWCwZtp06QCgwzXj
 HpgFpl2Jv4TkX2FFl4EQA5w=
 =TvmZ
 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Suppose that depends on whether you think the doc or the code is in error  
there.
(Why would you need to evaluate an expression (pun-roll, please) expressly  
in a
return statement?)

-- 
"Unhappy Microsoft customers have a funny way of becoming Linux,
Salesforce.com and Oracle customers." - www.microsoft-watch.com:
"The Year in Review: Microsoft Opens Up"
--
"I plan on at least one critical patch every month, and I haven't been  
disappointed."
- Adam Hansen, manager of security at Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
(Quote from http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1736104,00.asp)
--
"It's been a challenge to "reteach or retrain" Web users to pay for  
content, said Pizey"
-Wired website: "The Incredible Shrinking Comic"
Dec 09 2004
next sibling parent reply "Lionello Lunesu" <lionello.lunesu crystalinter.remove.com> writes:
Hi..


 http://digitalmars.com/d/statement.html#return

 type.





[...]


 cannot implicitly convert expression dummy() of type int to void






[...]


 Suppose that depends on whether you think the doc or the code is in error 
 there.


I agree. I think the type should still match, so you can do "return 
some_func_that_returns_void();" in a function returning void, which feels 
like it should be allowed since that return wants void and the called 
function returns void.


 (Why would you need to evaluate an expression (pun-roll, please) expressly 
 in a return statement?)


To eliminate an extra pair of braces:

if (sometest)
    return do_something();

instead of:

if (sometest) {
    do_something();
    return;
}

(I for one like D's behaviour.)

-- 
L.

-- Get the root certificate at https://www.cacert.org/
Dec 09 2004
parent tetsuya <tetsuya_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <cp9nto$d4p$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Lionello Lunesu says...

Hi..


 http://digitalmars.com/d/statement.html#return

 type.








To Walter,
In case the doc is gonna be adopted, is 'out (result)' going to be
allowed after such void functions?


[...]


 (Why would you need to evaluate an expression (pun-roll, please) expressly 
 in a return statement?)


To eliminate an extra pair of braces:

if (sometest)
    return do_something();

instead of:

if (sometest) {
    do_something();
    return;
}



Maybe it's also useful for contract, huh?
Returning type would be a concern, though.


-tetsuya
Dec 14 2004
prev sibling parent Thomas Kuehne <thomas-dloop kuehne.thisisspam.cn> writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Simon Buchan schrieb am Fri, 10 Dec 2004 03:18:07 +1300:

 On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 08:45:37 +0100, Thomas Kuehne  
<thomas-dloop kuehne.thisisspam.cn> wrote:


 http://digitalmars.com/d/statement.html#return

 type.


 return_01.d:












 cannot implicitly convert expression dummy() of type int to void


 test case:
 http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/run/return_01.d





 Suppose that depends on whether you think the doc or the code is in error  
 there.
 (Why would you need to evaluate an expression (pun-roll, please) expressly  
 in a  return statement?)


I usually would say that the the doc has the highest priority ...
But this rule seems very odd. Unless someone provides me with a valid
reason to keep this, I would suggest to adapt the documentation to the
current implementation.

Thomas



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.9.13 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBuGPH3w+/yD4P9tIRAuiKAKCT5mHK8n2q3G1A+6Zn6g8upoePpwCg0ULf
Q20vF3Cb0WlT6pQmIxk7lyA=
=8m4O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dec 09 2004