The returns which were removed in that commit were added back in 0586a06 after some discussion with library folks and Richard. As it turns out, you can either describe the return value via a 'return' there in the Effects:, or in a Returns: clause. It seems to be up to the library authors as to which method they prefer to use. That said, the inconsistency bothers me too - I found it to be confusing.

I don't know if you want to close this now, given that the inconsistency appears to be intended? I did ask the library folks to go through the spec and make sure the returns/Returns are how they want them to be, as part of a related issue.

One thing I'd like to change is to add a : after the Equivalent to: when it is followed by a code block - I think that would help to at least know when we are introducing a code block, but no one has replied to me on that.

I think there's a distinction: "Effects: Equivalent to return foo();" leaves it up to the implementation, whereas "Returns: foo()." prescribes a specific implementation.

Note that "Equivalent to" has special meaning; see 17.4.1.4p4.

I don't think there's anything to be done for this issue that wouldn't be covered by #1119.