[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: no return value vs. nil return value(s)
- From: Roberto Ierusalimschy <roberto@...>
- Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:36:40 -0300
> Sorry, but I don't agree. I know this may be nitpicking, but the
> sentence you cite refers to an *list of expressions* (emphasis
> "If an expression is used as the last (or the only) element of a
> *list of expressions*, then no adjustment is made (unless the call
> is enclosed in parentheses)."
(A "*list of expressions*", like most lists, can be empty. An empty list,
having no element, returns no value.)
If you know you may be nitpicking (yor are!), why do you do that to your
more than 2000 readers?
In the good old days, when someone could not understand something in the
manual, they asked in the list, got an answer and went on. Now, it seems
a question of pride that a simple answer is not enough; we somehow need
to blame the manual for the fact that we did not understand something.
Please, let us stop this. Let us be a little more condescending with
the manual. I am sure most people would not like the final result of
trying to make the manual completely unambiguous for every reader.
PS: I got Lorenzo's message as an opportunity to mention that, but
this message is in no way exclusive to him.