Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!msb
From: msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: When does void make code less readable?
Message-ID: <420@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 17-Feb-85 12:46:26 EST
Article-I.D.: lsuc.420
Posted: Sun Feb 17 12:46:26 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 17-Feb-85 15:01:26 EST
References: <1995@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Distribution: net
Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 31
Summary: When the return value doesn't have to be used.


Consider the function strcpy.  The manual here declares this as:

     char *strcpy(s1, s2)
     char *s1, *s2;

The return value here is just a copy of the input value s1, provided
on the off-chance that it'll be useful to the calling program.  I claim
that all functions that don't otherwise return a value should strive
to return a might-be-useful value.  Then when you see a function call
whose result is unassigned, you know a return value is being ignored.
I think (void) should be reserved for really unusual cases, as documentation
that you really meant to do that.

I do support the use of lint, but I don't like (void).  It just clashes
with the language's style, to my mind.  After all, we can write:

	a = ++b;
or:
	++b;

but I don't want to write the latter as:

	(void) ++b;

everywhere.  What's the difference between this an a function call:

	increment(&b);
?

Mark Brader