Re^8: Unhappy returns

[Aristotle]

by your argument, @x = do { for (1) { 1 } }; should be a syntax error, too, and it isn’t.

Huh? do {} is an expression that evaluates a block. (And like a function call, it too returns the value of the last expression evaluated.) Blocks may contain statements. How is that inconsistent with sauoq’s point?

[ysth]

Careful, when you say "evaluates a block", you are almost coming right out and stating that a block has a return value :). Which was my point: what could it mean to evaluate a block containing only a for statement? If a for statement doesn't have a return value, it shouldn't even be valid syntax.