Re: [pro] (values) for for-effect functions

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...)