From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Deniz Dogan Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] /srv/bzr/emacs/trunk r104642: * src/process.c (Fset_process_buffer): Clarify return value in docstring. Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 22:17:21 +0200 Message-ID: <4E00FC51.7050005@dogan.se> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1308687620 11920 80.91.229.12 (21 Jun 2011 20:20:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:20:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Juanma Barranquero , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 21 22:20:16 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QZ7Ql-0003Ja-KQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 22:20:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37956 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QZ7Qk-00016U-Fg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:20:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:38136) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QZ7Og-0000eh-IM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:18:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QZ7Oe-0001ZC-H9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:18:06 -0400 Original-Received: from ch-smtp04.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.153.5]:59000) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QZ7Oe-0001Yu-3J for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:18:04 -0400 Original-Received: from c80-216-105-155.bredband.comhem.se ([80.216.105.155]:63134 helo=[192.168.0.10]) by ch-smtp04.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1QZ7O6-0006XM-EZ; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 22:17:32 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 In-Reply-To: X-Originating-IP: 80.216.105.155 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1QZ7O6-0006XM-EZ. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp04.sth.basefarm.net 1QZ7O6-0006XM-EZ c416f0ad94887130edc88fb14de44e16 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.76.153.5 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:140804 Archived-At: On 2011-06-21 18:33, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> What about `display-buffer'? It certainly exists for its side effect, >> but it returns the window, a fact which is both documented and used. >> If it were a new function, would you oppose doing so? > > No, I do not systematically oppose side-effecting functions which return > a value as well. That would be much too drastic (e.g. how would you > figure out which window was used by `display-buffer'?). > I;.e. the return value is really indispensable. Contrast this with > set-process-buffer whose return value is always available to the caller > before even calling it. > I'm just wondering: can I rely on `set-process-buffer' always returning the buffer from now on or is it prone to change given the fact that it is "accidental"? Thanks, Deniz