Title
Unclear phrasing about "returning to the caller"
Status
open
Section
8.7.4 [stmt.return]
Submitter
Jan Schultke

Created on 2023-08-23.00:00:00 last changed 3 weeks ago

Messages

Date: 2023-08-29.19:50:46

Suggested resolution:

  1. Change in 7.6.2.4 [expr.await] paragraph 1 as follows:

    The co_await expression is used to suspend evaluation of a coroutine (9.5.4 [dcl.fct.def.coroutine]) while awaiting completion of the computation represented by the operand expression. Suspending the evaluation of a coroutine transfers control to its caller or resumer.
  2. Change 8.7.4 [stmt.return] paragraph 1 as follows:

    A function returns to its caller by the return statement. A return statement transfers control to the caller of a function.
  3. Change 8.7.5 [stmt.return.coroutine] paragraph 1 as follows:

    A coroutine returns to its caller or resumer (9.5.4 [dcl.fct.def.coroutine]) by the co_return statement or when suspended (7.6.2.4 [expr.await]). A co_return statement transfers control to the caller or resumer of a coroutine (9.5.4 [dcl.fct.def.coroutine]). A coroutine shall not enclose a return statement (8.7.4 [stmt.return]).
  4. Change in 9.5.4 [dcl.fct.def.coroutine] paragraph 10 as follows:

    If the allocation function returns nullptr, the coroutine returns transfers control to the caller of the coroutine and the return value is obtained by a call to T::get_return_object_on_allocation_failure(), where T is the promise type.
Date: 2023-08-23.00:00:00

In 8.7.4 [stmt.return] and 8.7.5 [stmt.return.coroutine], the standard uses the phrasing "returns to its caller" when specifying return or co_return. It would be better to talk about transfer of control, which is a term used elsewhere in the standard.

History
Date User Action Args
2023-08-29 19:50:46adminsetmessages: + msg7417
2023-08-23 00:00:00admincreate