You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Perhaps we should remove the use of void as a return type. Objects that perform an operation that modify themselves and don't necessarily have something to return can return themselves (similar to the builder pattern).
Procedures that aren't related to a class can always return a boolean indicating success or failure. We can even make the lack of a return be considered a success.
Example:
procedure1() {
a = 10
b = 10
c = a + b
print(c)
}
procedure1() // prints: '20', returns true
procedure2() {
number = readInt()
// This if "statement" would also technically be an expression that returns a boolean in this proposal
if (number % 2 != 0) {
// This can also be an expression maybe?
return false
}
}
procedure2() // < 1 returns false; < 2 returns true
It might encourage chaining procedures together like so:
This is possible in the current state of LJ, but it might be further encouraged if we default return types to boolean (is this something we want to encourage?).
Presumably function definitions and class definitions would now also be expressions if we were strict about "no statements" which would mean LJ has first-class functions (and potentially lambdas).
function1 = main() { println("Hello, world!" }
function1() // "Hello, world!"
main() // "Hello, world!
function2 = (arg1, arg2) { printf("%s, %s", arg1, arg2) }
function2("cats", "dogs") // "cats, dogs"
function3(otherFunction, arg1, arg2) {
return otherFunction(arg1, arg2)
}
function3(function2, "cats", "dogs") // "cats, dogs"
class1 = Dog { ...class stuff... }
dog1 = class1() // Returns a new Dog instance
dog2 = Dog() // Returns a new Dog instance
class2 = { ...class stuff... } // LJ uses '{ }' for sets, so there needs to be some disambiguation here
object1 = class2()
someFactoryFunction(someClass, args) {
return someClass(args)
}
someFactoryFunction(class1, args) // Returns a new Dog instance
Treating everything like an expression feels more clear. It might seem odd to beginners that some funny words "return" stuff while other funny words "do" stuff. Some beginners have trouble figuring out when to use print() and when to use a return for example.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Ruby by default returns nil, and nil is a falsy value so it's similar. LJ wouldn't have truthy and falsy values (unless we feel strongly about adding that)
Perhaps we should remove the use of void as a return type. Objects that perform an operation that modify themselves and don't necessarily have something to return can return themselves (similar to the builder pattern).
Example:
Procedures that aren't related to a class can always return a boolean indicating success or failure. We can even make the lack of a return be considered a success.
Example:
It might encourage chaining procedures together like so:
This is possible in the current state of LJ, but it might be further encouraged if we default return types to boolean (is this something we want to encourage?).
Presumably function definitions and class definitions would now also be expressions if we were strict about "no statements" which would mean LJ has first-class functions (and potentially lambdas).
Treating everything like an expression feels more clear. It might seem odd to beginners that some funny words "return" stuff while other funny words "do" stuff. Some beginners have trouble figuring out when to use
print()
and when to use areturn
for example.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: