From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2008-07-12 02:20:15
|
Bugs item #1991477, was opened at 2008-06-12 01:55 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=110894&aid=1991477&group_id=10894 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: 18. Commands M-Z Group: None >Status: Closed Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Don Porter (dgp) Summary: documentation of [return] is misleading Initial Comment: Regarding the -code option to [return], the manual states: "return (2) The return code of the procedure is 2 (TCL_RETURN). The procedure command behaves in its calling context as if it were the command return (with no arguments)." This would imply that no *value* argument could be supplied to the [return -code return] form to be returned from the procedure command's caller. It would be more clear to specify more precisely which arguments would be present in the hypothetical return in the parent. Colin. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: SourceForge Robot (sf-robot) Date: 2008-07-12 02:20 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1312539 Originator: NO This Tracker item was closed automatically by the system. It was previously set to a Pending status, and the original submitter did not respond within 14 days (the time period specified by the administrator of this Tracker). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Don Porter (dgp) Date: 2008-06-27 19:25 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=80530 Originator: NO If we simply removed "(with no arguments)", would that solve the problem? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=110894&aid=1991477&group_id=10894 |