Re: is return a function? [was ugly CVS subject]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Gabor Hojtsy wrote: > >> <function>return</function> is how it's done, just like > >> <function>include</function>, <function>print</function>, etc. > > > > Yet, return is not a function, unlike include or print. > > > > <literal> could get a link to the anchor in the doc to return. > > same would apply to continue and break, while, for..... > > > > That is more consistent. > > What do you think? > > We can easily make <literal>return</literal> to point to the return > functions docs in XSLT, it's quite easy. But I don't know if someone > would do that for DSSSL and still <literal> is not meant for language > keywords. So if you would like to find something better then <function> > I would not support <literal>. There is probably some other tag more > suitable here... > > I tried to look up some more appropriate tag here for return and the > like, but was unable to find one. Literals definitions is: "A Literal is > some specific piece of data, taken literally, from a computer system. It > is similar in some ways to UserInput and ComputerOutput, but is somewhat > more of a general classification. The sorts of things that constitute > literals varies by domain." This does not fit things like return. A > language keyword is not a <literal> IMHO, it is more a <function>, > especially if it looks like a function, and can be used like a function. I agree, use of <literal> here is not the way to go. I don't see anything wrong with <function>, we use it with other non-functions like include, print, unset, etc. And, return can take on () so that's not a problem either. Constructs are pretty much like functions, the tag works well. Regarding the the other stuff, like break/for/while... We could create a new tag or simply use <link>. I don't mind just using <link> for these. Regards, Philip