From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier 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 12:33:42 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1308676156 4512 80.91.229.12 (21 Jun 2011 17:09:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:09:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Deniz Dogan , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Juanma Barranquero Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 21 19:09:10 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 1QZ4Rq-0003Uq-7l for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 19:09:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42491 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QZ4Rp-0006u1-3X for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:09:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:49899) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QZ3tj-0005tO-9L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:33:56 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QZ3th-0002ap-54 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:33:55 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:31417 helo=ironport2-out.pppoe.ca) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QZ3tg-0002a8-A4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:33:52 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAB7HAE5FxL0s/2dsb2JhbABUpnB4iHO/d4YqBJlfhAWEJA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,402,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="116786772" Original-Received: from 69-196-189-44.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO ceviche.home) ([69.196.189.44]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 21 Jun 2011 12:33:47 -0400 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 53F14660F1; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:33:42 -0300 (ART) In-Reply-To: (Juanma Barranquero's message of "Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:30:38 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.181 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:140788 Archived-At: > 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. Stefan