From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lucio De Re To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] same functions everywhere Message-ID: <20030507142511.F26796@cackle.proxima.alt.za> References: <20030501160047.7231.qmail@g.bio.cse.psu.edu> <000c01c3147c$c7665ae0$7b83773e@SOMA> <3EB8E817.4090609@ameritech.net> <20030507124006.D26796@cackle.proxima.alt.za> <3EB9049D.50500@ameritech.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <3EB9049D.50500@ameritech.net>; from northern snowfall on Wed, May 07, 2003 at 08:05:33AM -0500 Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 14:25:12 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: a1657168-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 08:05:33AM -0500, northern snowfall wrote: > > > Ok, this seems pretty silly to me, because, it just > breaks down to bad coding style. > Not really. Mostly, one wants the location where the item was found (x, in my example) which your function discards. Sometimes, one may want to take action if the item is not found. Was it APL that returned -1 on not found? Doesn't help much if I'm not interested, as I still have to check the validity of the return value. ++L