Return is all about providing a value *when used transitively*.  When used intransitively, it's about moving yourself.  There's nothing about the latter sense that implies providing a value.

Which is not to say Richard did not overstate the case - "return needn't necessarily (in English) suggest providing a value" would be more correct, but isn't that far from a charitable interpretation of what he'd said.


On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Donn Cave <donn@avvanta.com> wrote:
quoth Richard A. O'Keefe,
...
> If you're familiar with *English* rather than, say, the C family of
> programming languages, "return" isn't _that_ bad, there is certainly
> nothing about the word that suggests providing a value.

The RFC822 headers of your email suggest that you use a Macintosh computer,
so apart from the apparently disputable question of whether you're familiar
with English, you have the same online dictionary as mine.  Second definition:
"give, put, or send (something) back to a place or person", with examples
"she returned his kiss", usage from tennis and football, verdicts, etc.
Third definition:  "yield or make a profit", fourth (re)elect a person or party.
"Return" is all about providing a value, in English.

When a term like "return" is used in a computer programming language in
a sense that confounds any prior expectation based on English or other
programming languages, that's the opposite of "intuitive".  It "is what
it is", and it's silly to talk about changing it at this point, but that
doesn't mean that we have to turn the notion of "intuitive" on its head.

        Donn

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe