[pro] (values) for for-effect functions

[Scott L. Burson]

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Peter Seibel <peter at gigamonkeys.com> wrote:

> My taste tells me that's an over-clever idiom and should not be used.
> If it's not clear that a function is for-effect without (values)
> you've already lost.
>

I can certainly see the argument that this information primarily belongs in
the doc string, and the use of (values) must not become a substitute for
specifying it there.

As long as that is kept in mind, the practice seems harmless to me.

-- Scott
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/pro/attachments/20101202/f0373010/attachment.html>