Yes. On 7 Dec 2010, at 19:36, Peter Seibel wrote:
> You mean PCL the CLOS implementation, right? > > -Peter > > On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Pascal Costanza <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 3 Dec 2010, at 13:34, Martin Simmons wrote: >> >>> I think it is confusing to use (values) for that purpose, because "no >>> values" >>> is also a valid return value (e.g. for reader macro functions >>> http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/02_add.htm). >>> >>> I would make it a macro, called something like void. >>> >>> OTOH, use of (values) or (void) will prevent tail call optimization, so may >>> be >>> undesirable. >> >> I think this is the strongest argument in this thread: Most other arguments >> seem to point out only subjective and/or stylistic issues, while this one is >> a hard technical difference. Preventing tail call optimizations for >> stylistic issues is a bad idea, IMHO. >> >> I have occasionally used the (values) idiom, but only in test situations, >> when I don't like seeing return values in the REPL. I seem to recall some >> uses of (values) in PCL. >> >> Pascal >> >> -- >> Pascal Costanza, mailto:[email protected], http://p-cos.net >> Vrije Universiteit Brussel >> Software Languages Lab >> Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pro mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro >> > > > > -- > Peter Seibel > http://www.codequarterly.com/ -- Pascal Costanza, mailto:[email protected], http://p-cos.net Vrije Universiteit Brussel Software Languages Lab Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium _______________________________________________ pro mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro
