On Jan 6, 1:35 pm, "Mark Volkmann" <r.mark.volkm...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm tempted to say that if a function doesn't have a name that implies > what it returns or a comment describing what it returns, then callers > shouldn't use it.
That just means that the return value isn't defined, so you shouldn't rely on it returning anything. I recall that Scheme and Common Lisp differ on the return values of DO or PROGN - like forms (that sequence side effects) -- Scheme seems to like returning nil (to emphasize that such forms are for side effects only and to be avoided otherwise) and Common Lisp likes to return the last expression in the sequence (unless it's a PROG1 or PROG2, which explicitly define which expression's value gets returned). So Lisps seem to disagree about the return values of forms that sequence side effects, which to me says one should be careful about relying on them (esp. if they are undocumented!). mfh --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
