3 Dec
2010
3 Dec
'10
12:31 a.m.
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Peter Seibel peter@gigamonkeys.com 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