From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out.smtp-auth.no-ip.com (smtp-auth.no-ip.com [8.23.224.60]) by hurricane.the-brannons.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A04047788A for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 23:11:23 -0700 (PDT) X-No-IP: carhart.net@noip-smtp X-Report-Spam-To: abuse@no-ip.com Received: from carhart.net (unknown [99.57.137.251]) (Authenticated sender: carhart.net@noip-smtp) by smtp-auth.no-ip.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DD83838000C for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 23:11:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (kevin@localhost) by carhart.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x6L6BHKl238456 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 23:11:18 -0700 Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 23:11:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Kevin Carhart To: edbrowse-dev@lists.the-brannons.com Subject: [edbrowse-dev] comma-separated return statements Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) X-BeenThere: edbrowse-dev@edbrowse.org List-Id: Edbrowse Development List MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Wow, I should have looked this up many days ago. There's a phrasing created by minimization which is misleading for human readers. FYI if you don't already know, in the compound return statement, return a,b,c,d The a,b,c are simply going to be run. The real return value is the d. It is not somehow a compound value which draws from all of them because that isn't how return works. So return a,b,c,d is functionally the same as a; b; c; return d; And this means that there can be a chance to echo values in between those lines. Otherwise, I thought I was stuck with these impenetrable blocks that became illegal if you break them up.