From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9e90e30a519a635b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: return statements in procedures
Date: 2000/06/06
Message-ID: <wcc1z2bq7h5.fsf@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 631708504
Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
References: <393B2054.618F6E80@baesystems.com.au>
 <393B478D.642D9C31@research.canon.com.au>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-06-06T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Geoff Bull <geoff@research.canon.com.au> writes:

> Given appropriate circumstances, anything is acceptable.
> If return statements in procedures were never acceptable,
> the language designers would have made them illegal.

That doesn't follow -- language designers are not gods.

- Bob