From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dieter Wilhelm Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: No return value in doc string Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 12:01:35 +0200 Message-ID: <87wtd8ya2o.fsf@hans.local.net> References: <87fyjy6b09.fsf-monnier+gnu.emacs.help@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1146330839 13637 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2006 17:13:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 17:13:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 29 19:13:56 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FZt0w-0001lD-5j for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 19:13:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FZt0v-0005xO-Jc for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 13:13:49 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FZnHQ-0007MY-GV for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 07:06:28 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FZnHO-0007MJ-I2 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 07:06:27 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FZnHO-0007MB-8l for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 07:06:26 -0400 Original-Received: from [212.227.126.186] (helo=moutng.kundenserver.de) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FZnKj-0006P4-Ey for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 07:09:53 -0400 Original-Received: from [84.167.4.215] (helo=duenenhof-wilhelm.de) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu10) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0ML31I-1FZnHM05Ct-0006Cm; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 13:06:24 +0200 Original-Received: by duenenhof-wilhelm.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CC7823AD73; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 12:01:35 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:fnhwQEirDhbWH2j0zevTsK3lyGc= In-Reply-To: <87fyjy6b09.fsf-monnier+gnu.emacs.help@gnu.org> (Stefan Monnier's message of "Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:07:46 -0400") X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de login:d7ab225b98a136e1c2910381f940ecb9 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 13:13:37 -0400 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:34717 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: > > When called interactively, a function's return value is simply ignored, so > if a function is expected to only be called interactively, there is no > reason to document the return value. Thank you, this is a point I didn't realise. > Also if the function makes no effort to return anything useful, it > might be better not to document what the return value happens to be. But has the disadvantage that the uninitiated and insecure (my example) may suspect a documentation flaw. >> Should I report this as bugs or is this a bit over the top? > Your call, Eli Z. convinced me already not to waste anybodies time with it. -- Best wishes Dieter Wilhelm