[pro] (values) for for-effect functions

[Scott L. Burson]

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Daniel Weinreb <dlw at itasoftware.com> wrote:

>
>  From a purely emotional/historical point of
> view, I am not used to seeing these (values)
> forms, and they seem somewhat ugly and
> verbose.  But that's just based on my own
> experience and should not carry much weight.
>
> I'd like to write in our programming standards
> either that they should be used, or that they
> should not be used.  I think it's suboptimal
> for them to be used in some places and
> not others, since the inconsistency could lead
> a reader of the code to draw wrong conclusions.
>
> What do people think?
>
>
I haven't been in the habit of using them, but now you describe the
practice, it seems like a good idea.  Maybe I will start.  I have the luxury
of writing just for my own eyes, though; your situation is more
complicated.  It certainly seems unfortunate to tell people to take them out
when they've gone to the trouble of putting them in.

I agree that a function that returns a value along any path should not use
(values) anywhere.  This seems consistent with the intent of the practice,
which is, after all, clarity.

-- Scott
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/pro/attachments/20101202/c66755b8/attachment.html>