[pro] (values) for for-effect functions

[Attila Lendvai]

> 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.


i feel the need to counter this: i think it's bad practice to put
anything in an informal documentation that could be formalized in the
code with reasonable effort (e.g. a defun-void macro in this case).

(i would even argue that using literal strings for documentation is a
bad idea, and the "docstring" should be an evaluated expression at
compile time and the stored result should be a much more complex
structure than a character string. but this amendment leads to a long
and somewhat irrelevant discussion regarding the original
statement...)

-- 
 attila