Return currently uses the same syntax as labels

[porky11]

I think, removing the : after return would be less confusing.

[porky11]

In order to make this change backwards compatible in cases where return is the last statement, the last statement could be implicitly returned just like in Rust.

[porky11]

I just realized it basically already works like this. It's just enforced to call the label before the return value "return".

This is bad for refactoring.

Look at the else_if example. Let's assume, we don't want to return the value directly after jumping to return, but do something afterwards.

For example this:

fn main() -> i32
{
	var x = 33;

	if x == 0
	{
		x = 10;
		goto return;
	}
	else if x == 1
		goto return;
	else if x == 2
	{
		if x == 5
		{
			x = 17;
		}
		else
			goto return;
	}
	else if x == 3
		goto return;
	else
	{
		x = 55;
	}
	
	return:
	var y = x * x;
	x = y - x;
	x
}

It's not possible. Instead you would have to rename every "goto return" to "goto end", also rename label "return" to "end" and add a new label "return" before x.

So being allowed to use "return" as a label for "goto" while enforcing "return" to be the label before the return value at the end, might not be a good idea.

[SLiV9]

Yes return is a bit special in that it's a label that also signals the start of the return value. As a style convention I've started putting the return value on the same line as the label (return: x), but not all the code samples do this yet. That at least prevents adding statements between the return: and the return value.

I do think you raise a good point about ease of refactoring. Instead of the three steps you mention, it's just two: adding a new label before the added instructions, and changing all the goto statements. And perhaps there is some value to the invariant "goto return; never executes any further statements with side effects".