Andreas Raab wrote:
> 
> Hi Benoit,
> 
> In most cases I prefer the first version with explicit returns as it tells
> the reader what exactly is being returned. I find it *terribly* problematic
> to see code like
> 
>         ^foo = bar ifTrue:[42]
> 
> as it doesn't tell me what is being returned if it's false (and no it does
> not return 'self' it returns 'nil' - ho hum...). So in this sense I find
> explicit returns *much* more expressive here and in many cases I would claim
> such changes to be an obfuscation rather than a 'cleanup' (as in: more
> readable, better to understand).
> 
This is my opinion too.

Karl
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On
> > Behalf Of Benoit St-Jean
> > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 6:54 PM
> > To: Squeak Mailing List
> > Subject: Where would you put the return?
> >
> >
> > While we're in KCP mode, I was wondering if there was
> > any good reason for the following code in
> > Object>>#isKindOf:
> >
> > isKindOf: aClass
> >       "Answer whether the class, aClass, is a superclass or
> > class of the
> >       receiver. "
> >       self class == aClass
> >               ifTrue: [^ true]
> >               ifFalse: [^ self class inheritsFrom: aClass].
> >
> >
> > Why isn't it written like that:
> >
> > ^self class == aClass
> >               ifTrue: [true]
> >               ifFalse: [self class inheritsFrom: aClass].
> >
> > Just curious.  You can find similar "multiple returns"
> > in a few places in the image...  Not really important
> > but I prefer the "cleaner" version...
> >
> > My 2 cents.
> >
> >
> > =====
> > -----------------
> > Benoit St-Jean
> > Yahoo! Messenger: bstjean
> > A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero. --
> > Albert Einstein
> >