Re: another way to shoot yourself in the foot?

[Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>]

"Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.acm.org> writes:

> Robert A Duff wrote:
>> Build-in-place is determined by the type, not by the
>> syntactic form of the return statement.
>
> I'm not sure I see any point to the extended return statement. Wouldn't
> it have been clearer and simpler to have done something like
>
>    Result : return T;
>    ...
> begin
>    ...
>    return Result;
>
> with a rule that only 1 "return variable" may be in scope at a time?

I actually advocated something along those lines.
I think it has (probably-solvable) problems, too.
If you're curious, look up the relevant AI.

As Dmitry pointed out, with this idea, there's no need for the "return
Result;".

- Bob