On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Peter Seibel <[email protected]> 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
_______________________________________________ pro mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro
