CBFalconer wrote:

My own attitude is that the use of result is pointless in the first place. It gains nothing that I can see over the standard method "bar := ...". In fact I like to code many things as:

FUNCTION foo : T

VAR
  anotherTvalue : T

BEGIN
foo := someTvalue; (* default *)
....
IF whatever THEN foo := anotherTvalue;
....
END;

Please show me something that the traditional method can't do.

Function getIndexOf ( aData: tDataType ) = result: integer;

var data: tDataType;

begin (* getIndexOf *) result:= 0; data:= someFirstDataInForExampleALinkedList; while ( data <> aData ) and ( data <> nil ) do begin data:= getNextData ( data ); inc ( result ); (* ... and this is what you definitely need a result variable for. *) end (* while *); end (* getIndexOf *);

Of course, you also can do so by explicitly declaring `result`as a local variable and assigning it to getIndexOf in the end, but personally, I find the above way far more elegant.

Frank: Would it cause much effort/pain to make the old syntax possible again? ______________________________________________________________ Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS! Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193