This raises the question of how FOR and WHILE should be handled with implicit return. I suppose, if either of those is the last form in a function, the function should just return NIL? Also, we can extend PS LOOP to do much as CL's LOOP does with intra-loop RETURNs. But we should hold off on this till implicit return is working in PS. On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 12:05 PM, <sblist@me.com> wrote:

Hi Vladimir,

You'll probably want to handle FOR, WHILE separately in the RETURN special form, but I think this works for our purposes with the existing support for PROGN.

Generally, I think that the implicit return mechanism should try its utmost to avoid generating JS syntax errors.

- Scott

--- src/lib/ps-loop.lisp | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/lib/ps-loop.lisp b/src/lib/ps-loop.lisp index 7272247..8a383a4 100644 --- a/src/lib/ps-loop.lisp +++ b/src/lib/ps-loop.lisp @@ -325,4 +325,4 @@ ,@(initially loop) ,main ,@(finally loop)) - ,@(when (default-accum-var loop) `((return ,(default-accum- var loop))))))) + ,(aif (default-accum-var loop) it nil)))) -- 1.6.5.2

_______________________________________________ parenscript-devel mailing list parenscript-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel