Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site allegra.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!vaxine!wjh12!genrad!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!alan
From: alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: return expr and Decus-C
Message-ID: <2469@allegra.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 11-May-84 16:34:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: allegra.2469
Posted: Fri May 11 16:34:22 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 15-May-84 02:02:03 EDT
References: <478@decvax.UUCP>, <1514@brl-vgr.ARPA>, <853@druxm.UUCP>, <1802@brl-vgr.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 27

> From: gwyn@brl-vgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
> Newsgroups: net.lang.c
> Subject: Re: return expr and Decus-C

> The examples
>	while expr
> etc. are silly.  They are not even legal C.
>	return expr;
> is.


Of course the examples aren't legal C, but that's not the
point.  The question is, if you are worried that

	return (expr);

looks like a function call, why aren't you worried that

	while (expr) stat;

also looks like a function call?  (Remember that 'stat'
can be the null statement.)  Aren't you being just a bit
inconsistent?

-- 
	Alan S. Driscoll
	AT&T Bell Laboratories