Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?

[David Kastrup]

Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:

> On 10/19/11 3:26 AM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>\void #(hashq-set! ...)
>>\void #(hashq-set! ...)
>>
>>rather than
>>
>>\ignore #(hashq-set! ...)
>>\ignore #(hashq-set! ...)
>>
>>It's a bit C-ish, but not all that bad, and it fits with
>>define-void-function.
>
> \returnUnspecified #(hashq-set! ...)
>
> \scmUnspecified #(hashq-set! ...)
>
> \ignoreReturn #(hashq-set! ...)
>
> After all I can think of, I think \void is probably the best.

I am not enthused about this particular consequence of auto-exporting
Scheme expressions.  I currently don't see a better way of handling it,
and it has flagged more bad code than false positives when I tried it.
But I would be quite surprised if it did not trigger regressions with
existing previously valid and reasonable code.

-- 
David Kastrup