Thinking about code

[andrewducker]

  If I have a method:
int DoSomething(string someStuff)
{
  //Do Stuff
  return 42;
}
then effectively I have an unnamed variable that gets set by the return statement, yes?

That being the case, wouldn't it be in some ways clearer to have an explicit, named, variable that gets set instead?

int DoSomething(string someStuff)
{
  //Do Stuff
  returnValue = 42;
}

where "returnValue" is a keyword that's used to return the value.

As it is I frequently end up with code that creates (or sets) a variable at various points through the code just so it can be returned at the end.  Making this an explicit part of the language just makes sense to me.

I assume there are languages out there that do this.

Comments

[andrewducker]

I don't care - except that it would be nice to have that location named - and I can't really see the overhead of doing so. I wouldn't name it after the function - I'd have a keyword, so anonymous functions aren't a problem.

[skington.livejournal.com]

So you basically want exactly the same as the return keyword, except you can call it at any time without actually returning. So what if you want to return part-way through your function? Do you now have to use two keywords?

[andrewducker]

It's nothing like the return keyword. It's simply a reference to a variable.

Let's have another example:
void MyMethod(string input, out string output)
{
output = input + " was processed";
}

That's perfectly valid C# syntax - and works fine. No need for a return - all I have to do is make sure that I set "output" sometime before the end of the method.

What I'd like is for _all_ output variables (including the implicit one) to work that way.