At least in LW, (values) returned to the REPL stops the repl from printing
anything. I've used it when the value otherwise returned would print something
big (and long).
I would expect to see it in (a) functions called at the top level and (b) in
places where "nothing" returned vs. "something"
On Dec 2, 2010, at 6:00 PM, Daniel Weinreb wrote:
> In case these terms are too old for anyone to know
> them, we used to use the phrase "for effect" to
> mean a function that was called for the sake
> of its side-effects, ...
> In some code I have seen, the author of the code
> has written (valu
On 3 December 2010 01:00, Daniel Weinreb wrote:
> The question is, is it good style? That is, ought
> we consider it something to be recommended?
CMUCL (and by extension SBCL) code does this quite a lot. I've never
been a huge fan -- partially because the style subtly encourages
side-effects wh
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Peter Seibel 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
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Peter Seibel 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 confess that I have used (values) before, not only to indicate that
a function was for effec
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Daniel Weinreb 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
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.
-Peter
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Daniel Weinreb wrote:
> In case these terms are too old for anyone to know
> them, we used to use the
In case these terms are too old for anyone to know
them, we used to use the phrase "for effect" to
mean a function that was called for the sake
of its side-effects, versus "for value" when it was
called for the sake of its returned value. (Actually
I'm not sure I remember what we called a function
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Ben Hyde wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2010, at 4:38 PM, David Owen wrote:
>> Perhaps you are looking for WITH-ACCESSORS?
>
> Indeed, I'm delighted to discover there is something in the language
> I've not used. thanks!
>
> Further I didn't know that setq turns into setf with the help o
On Dec 2, 2010, at 4:38 PM, David Owen wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Ben Hyde wrote:
>> Anyhow. Recall that with-slots expands to slot-value. That leads
>> me to wonder. Given that with-slots and slot-value are couple, why
>> haven't I observed analogous couple (with-fields and field-value
>> say
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Ben Hyde wrote:
> Anyhow. Recall that with-slots expands to slot-value. That leads
> me to wonder. Given that with-slots and slot-value are couple, why
> haven't I observed analogous couple (with-fields and field-value
> say) for accessors.
Perhaps you are looking for WITH-A
The system that Dan and I are working on does, in fact,
have a 'with-accessors' macro that does just what you think.
On Dec 2, 2010, at 12:37 PM, Ben Hyde wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Daniel Weinreb wrote:
>> The methods called by the callers (1) expect to find the object in a
>> consiste
On Dec 1, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Daniel Weinreb wrote:
> The methods called by the callers (1) expect to find the object in a
> consistent state, and (2) must leave the object in a consistent state
> when they terminate, whether they terminate normally (return) or
> abruptly (signal, return, throw, etc.
13 matches
Mail list logo
