"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
I don't see a real use case for the return value of Fclrhash, and
I
find it hard to imagine one. I think it's preferable to *not*
document the return value of functions that are only useful for their
side effects. Mike?
This case is in the tradition of "linear-update" functions, so I think
the return value is OK. I can thread manipulations of the hash table
through nested function calls like
(clrhash (clrhash (puthash ...)))
Is it obvious that returning VALUE is the right thing? What Would
Common Lisp Do?
Common Lisp would return t if the hash entry was found, nil if not.
While theoretically more useful, I don't think I've ever seen a case
where I would have used the return value.
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Patches mailing list
XEmacs-Patches(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-patches