Anonymous user
Talk:Flow-control structures: Difference between revisions
→REXX Return: clarification or expansion of statement definition for RETURN. -- ~~~~
Walterpachl (talk | contribs) (→REXX Return: still incorrect !?!) |
(→REXX Return: clarification or expansion of statement definition for RETURN. -- ~~~~) |
||
Line 37:
:::: What I see is wrong :-( Please reconsider the Return from a, internal subroutine or function! ..[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 18:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
::::: The RETURN text mentions "which could be a subroutine or function)" ... and passed control to the invoking program (the program that called or invoked the subroutine/function). If you think the phrase could use clarification, then feel free to add more verbage. It's sometimes not clear to readers what is being referred to which REXX code is being executed (or being called/invoked) when the REXX code calls/invokes an internal REXX program versus an external REXX program. This can be an area of misunderstanding, and certainly, an area of confusion. I'm not sure how to succinctly put that into words that is concise and easy to understand without getting to wording that is too obtuse. I don't want to re-write a REXX tutorial on the RETURN statement. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 19:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
== REXX Exit ==
| |||