Possible enhancement: Concise return statements

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2011-08-15 21:17, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:00:03 -0400, Walter Bright
> <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/15/2011 3:54 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>> 'When the last ExpressionStatement in a function body is missing the
>>> ';', it is
>>> implicitly returned.'
>>
>> This has been proposed several times before, it was also proposed for
>> C++0x. The difficulty is it makes having a ; or not substantially
>> alter the semantics. The history of these languages is that the
>> presence or absence of ; can be hard to spot, as in:
>>
>> for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++);
>> ... do this ...
>>
>> which has cost at least one expert developer I know an entire
>> afternoon staring at it convinced there was a compiler bug because his
>> loop executed only once.
>>
>> (And this is why D disallows this syntax.)
>
> Not that I'm for or against this issue, I think comparing this proposal
> to the for + empty statement is completely disproportionate.
>
> What is going to happen if someone adds an extra ';' ? Compiler error
> ("no return statement")
>
> What is going to happen if someone accidentally does not put a semicolon
> on the last statement? If it's not the correct return type, it's an
> error, otherwise, it's likely what the person wanted. It's not like a
> return can happen in the middle, it *only* comes in to play as the last
> line of the function.
>
> I agree with others that if this were to be implemented, only allowing
> the short form on single-expression functions would be a good
> conservative start. But again, I don't frequently use delegates like
> this, so I'm somewhat neutral.
>
> -Steve

The reason I don't use delegates as much as I would like to is just 
because of things like this, i.e. the syntax is too verbose.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg