4 ms·

What bothers me a lot is that return values can't have a name. Suppose I have a function string combineName(string first, string last); Okay, I assume the res

What bothers me a lot is that return values can't have a name. Suppose I have a function string combineName(string first, string last); Okay, I assume the result is the full name, but I don't really know that like I would if the return had a name in the header. (The function can be getFullName, yes, but that's so simple it doesn't matter).

geakstr 1y ago
Some languages allow to define type alias, name of this type can be self-explanatory: type FullName = string; function combineName(first: string, last: string): FullName; Also documentation comment for function is what specifically solves this - describes what function does and returns.
- hyperhello 1y ago
  Neither really addresses the issue. Making a type for a single kind of string seems like an abuse of types just to shoehorn the documentation in. Documentation can be used directly of course, but that moots all of this -- just document? Yeah, but naming the variable is super quick compared to either.
  - oneoverten 1y ago
    Variable names is just documentation. Having types that can assert some condition on the underlying value is not even comparable to "having a named return variable". (just document? just name variables?) You don't care about what the name of the returned value is, you care about what *it is*.
- avandekleut 1y ago
  Typescript nukes primitive aliases like this sadly. Intellisense will just infer it as "string".
disillusionist 1y ago
you can do this rather easily by returning an object rather than a primitive. if you're using a language like TypeScript, destructuring the resulting returned object is rather trivial and (in my opinion) delightful to read. eg function combineNames({ first, last }) { const fullName = `${first} ${last}`; return { fullName }; } const { fullName } = combineNames({first: 'John', last: 'Doe' });
- vbezhenar 1y ago
  For some reason React prefers to return arrays. I never understood the reason. const [state, setState] = useState(initialState) instead of const {state, setState} = useState(initialState)
wvenable 1y ago
I fail to see the distinction, for documentation purposes, of this versus just giving it that `getFullName` function name. A more complex example will probably return a more complex type that is more self-documenting. If the type is a single scalar value then I don't see the value of adding another name here.
avandekleut 1y ago
Similarly to passing an object argument, you can return an object. Then pair it with destructuring assignment! `const { fullName } = getName({ firstName, lastName )}`
mpweiher 1y ago
Name the function/method as the thing it "returns". In fact, just forget that it is a function that does something. Treat it as the thing it returns. string fullName( string firstName, string lastName )

geakstr 1y ago

Some languages allow to define type alias, name of this type can be self-explanatory: type FullName = string; function combineName(first: string, last: string): FullName; Also documentation comment for function is what specifically solves this - describes what function does and returns.

hyperhello 1y ago
Neither really addresses the issue. Making a type for a single kind of string seems like an abuse of types just to shoehorn the documentation in. Documentation can be used directly of course, but that moots all of this -- just document? Yeah, but naming the variable is super quick compared to either.
- oneoverten 1y ago
  Variable names is just documentation. Having types that can assert some condition on the underlying value is not even comparable to "having a named return variable". (just document? just name variables?) You don't care about what the name of the returned value is, you care about what *it is*.
avandekleut 1y ago
Typescript nukes primitive aliases like this sadly. Intellisense will just infer it as "string".

disillusionist 1y ago

you can do this rather easily by returning an object rather than a primitive. if you're using a language like TypeScript, destructuring the resulting returned object is rather trivial and (in my opinion) delightful to read. eg function combineNames({ first, last }) { const fullName = `${first} ${last}`; return { fullName }; } const { fullName } = combineNames({first: 'John', last: 'Doe' });

vbezhenar 1y ago
For some reason React prefers to return arrays. I never understood the reason. const [state, setState] = useState(initialState) instead of const {state, setState} = useState(initialState)

wvenable 1y ago

I fail to see the distinction, for documentation purposes, of this versus just giving it that `getFullName` function name. A more complex example will probably return a more complex type that is more self-documenting. If the type is a single scalar value then I don't see the value of adding another name here.

avandekleut 1y ago

Similarly to passing an object argument, you can return an object. Then pair it with destructuring assignment! `const { fullName } = getName({ firstName, lastName )}`

mpweiher 1y ago

Name the function/method as the thing it "returns". In fact, just forget that it is a function that does something. Treat it as the thing it returns. string fullName( string firstName, string lastName )