Perhaps s/he was looking at Lisp/Scheme: (define (foo x) (if (bar x) 1 #f)) The returned value is the value of the last expression. No need for an else, or a return keyword.
This is horrible. It looks like ":=" is a comparison operator. The last line is dangerously close to Erlang list comprehensions: [ {X, Y, X/Y} || X <- Some_Function (), Y <- Some_Other_Function () ] And people bitch…
Just need something like blocks in Smalltalk. Wikipedia page on list comprehensions says Smalltalk-80 had list comprehensions and that was ~ 40 years ago. Smalltalk also uses ":=" for assignment and "=" for comparison.…
Perhaps s/he was looking at Lisp/Scheme: (define (foo x) (if (bar x) 1 #f)) The returned value is the value of the last expression. No need for an else, or a return keyword.
This is horrible. It looks like ":=" is a comparison operator. The last line is dangerously close to Erlang list comprehensions: [ {X, Y, X/Y} || X <- Some_Function (), Y <- Some_Other_Function () ] And people bitch…
Just need something like blocks in Smalltalk. Wikipedia page on list comprehensions says Smalltalk-80 had list comprehensions and that was ~ 40 years ago. Smalltalk also uses ":=" for assignment and "=" for comparison.…