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 wrote:
>>
>> On 3 Dec 2010, at 13:34, Martin Simmons wrote:
>>
>>> I think it is confusing to use (values) for that purpose, becaus
You mean PCL the CLOS implementation, right?
-Peter
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Pascal Costanza 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
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
It looks like we do not have a concensus. Thanks
to everybody for contributing!
-- Dan
___
pro mailing list
pro@common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro
> 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 for
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
Daniel Weinreb wrote:
> I'd like to write in our programming standards either that they should
> be used, or that they should not be used. I think it's suboptimal for
> them to be used in some places and not others, since the inconsistency
> could lead a reader of the code to draw wrong conclusion
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:30 AM, David Owen wrote:
> On the other hand, I agree with Peter that it can be somewhat ugly.
> Maybe some alternatives, based on (values)?
>
> (defun f ()
> (for-effect
> (setq *foo* 'bar)))
>
Actually your example hints to a case where I *do* want a for-effect
f
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
