Please forgive my ignorance, without saying they are absent, I do not see the virtues of this "implicit return" earlier in the method.  The argument as put here "feels" to me much like those made by the pro-Goto camp (this is not intended as pejorative) during the debates of the 70's in imperative languages.

Do these really make things clearer in any meaningful way?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MIME :dway at mat.net > Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 12:09 PM
> To: squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: RE: [ENH] Empty return expression
> > > > On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Jarvis, Robert P. wrote:
> > > I don't like this because IMO it obfuscates what's going on > without adding
> > value.
> > On the contrary, I'd say it's more clear as to the intention of the
> return, which does add value.
> > Basically, it says that you want to exit the method at a > certain point,
> and that there is no return value to be used.
> > It's the equivalent of an implicit return, except earlier in > the method.
> Kent Beck and others recommend using implicit returns when > the method is
> not intending to return anything, because it makes the intention more
> clear (and I agree).  (In other words, with an implicit return, the
> calling method should not use the returned value.)
> > So, this seems like a good equivalent of an implicit return, > except that
> it is done earlier in the method, because you need to break out of the
> method.  Returning "^self" is misleading, because it implies that you
> might want to specifically return "self" to be used by the > caller.  (True,
> most Smalltalkers recognize "^self" as a generic return, but it's not
> always that way.)
> > I have to admit I thought it looked a little funny for a > minute, but it
> seems like a good idea.  (unless there's some other potential > problem I'm
> missing)
> > - Doug Way
>   EAI/Transom Technologies, Ann Arbor, MI
>   http://www.transom.com
>   dway at mat.net, @eai.com
> > > > > If you want to answer self in this situation, then type
> > > 	^self
> > > This requires four keystrokes, and it's clear.  Besides, > if the method is
> > going to answer 'nothing returned' shouldn't it answer nil > instead of self?
> > > Bob Jarvis
> > The Timken Company
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From:	Bert Freudenberg [SMTP:bert at isgnw.CS.Uni-Magdeburg.De]
> > > Sent:	Monday, September 27, 1999 4:36 AM
> > > To:	squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
> > > Subject:	[ENH] Empty return expression
> > > > > Parser patch to allow empty returns that indicate > 'nothing returned' like > > 	foo ifTrue: [self doSomething. ^]
> > > instead of the currently often (mis-)used
> > > 	foo ifTrue: [^self doSomething]
> > > as short form of
> > > 	foo ifTrue: [self doSomething. ^self]
> > > > > Discussion: > > This syntax matches the implicit > return of self at the end of
> > > a method. It makes the "void" return type of a method > explicit, which is
> > > good for self-documenting code. It's backwards > compatible. It's a minor
> > > change in the parser. So why not?
> > > > > It's not compatible to other Smalltalks - but then, > the brace constructs
> > > are even more different.
> > > > >   /bert << File:  >> > > > > > >