> It is already explicit in 12.3.1 > > "The return statement shall override any value assigned to > the function name. Sorry, that's not my idea of explicit. I read that as saying that the *return value* is provided by the expression in the return statement, rather than by the contents of the function name. It was precisely this sentence that led me to post the original query. I fear this is (yet another) example of imprecise language subverting the LRM's intent. "override" is quite inappropriate here; it certainly doesn't convey the notion "overwrite", which appears to be closer to the truth. > When the return statement is used, nonvoid functions > must specify an expression with the return. As I've already said, I don't really see why this restriction is necessary; but I suppose it might usefully protect users from certain kinds of folly :-) -- Jonathan Bromley, Consultant DOULOS - Developing Design Know-how VHDL * Verilog * SystemC * e * Perl * Tcl/Tk * Project Services Doulos Ltd. Church Hatch, 22 Market Place, Ringwood, Hampshire, BH24 1AW, UK Tel: +44 (0)1425 471223 Email: jonathan.bromley@doulos.com Fax: +44 (0)1425 471573 Web: http://www.doulos.com The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not the views of Doulos Ltd., unless specifically stated. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Thu Mar 1 06:54:15 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 01 2007 - 06:54:25 PST