[erlang-questions] Why doesn't Erlang has return statement?

[Garrett Smith]

I agree with Daniel and think he makes a very good point.
On Dec 16, 2014 8:52 PM, "Daniel Goertzen" <daniel.goertzen@REDACTED>
wrote:

> I recommend giving Garrett's video below a watch to overcome your fear of
> adding more functions.  I've always been skeptical of the approach, but I
> forced myself to try it and it actually works out really well.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQyt9Vlkbis
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:05 AM, aman mangal <mangalaman93@REDACTED>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I have seen similar questions before on the forum but I could never
>> understand the reason behind it. Is it due to theoretical reasons such as *return
>> *statement makes it hard to reason about the program or practical
>> reasons that it is hard to implement it (this doesn't seem right but I
>> cannot think of anything else)?
>>
>> Moreover, is there a good alternate to avoid nested case statements?
>> Making more functions just seems tedious. Using *catch *statement seems
>> another good alternate but my intuition is that it is not good practice, is
>> it?
>>
>> Thank you
>> Aman Mangal
>> www.prism.gatech.edu/~amangal7
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> erlang-questions mailing list
>> erlang-questions@REDACTED
>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20141217/67c5de7d/attachment.htm>