Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!spdcc!ima!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Warning messages
Keywords: large projects
Message-ID: <15728@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Date: 22 Jan 90 20:52:07 GMT
References: <1471@mdbs.UUCP> <2NNQZ%@rpi.edu> <25AFE8A6.14024@paris.ics.uci.edu> <15673@haddock.ima.isc.com> <15102@bfmny0.UU.NET>
Reply-To: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Cambridge, MA 02138-5302
Lines: 13

In article <15102@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes:
>In article <15673@haddock.ima.isc.com> karl@haddock (Karl Heuer) writes:
|>If you say that the solution is to use |return| instead of |exit()|, I can't
|>accept that.  Both are correct, the arguments for one are about as good as
|>for the other, and it's not the sort of thing that the compiler should try
|>to enforce.
|
|Just use both.  It executes the way you want, and parses the way C wants.

Then I would be inviting the compiler to complain about unreachable code.
Remember, I've configured it to know that |exit()| is nonreturning.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (karl@haddock.isc.com or ima!haddock!karl), The Walking Lint