Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sjuvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!sjuvax!jss
From: jss@sjuvax.UUCP (J. Shapiro)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: When does void make code less readable?
Message-ID: <878@sjuvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Feb-85 16:39:33 EST
Article-I.D.: sjuvax.878
Posted: Wed Feb 20 16:39:33 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Feb-85 03:37:32 EST
References: <1995@sun.uucp> <420@lsuc.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Saint Josephs Univ. Phila., Pa.
Lines: 18

[Pacman's revenge...]

	The real problem with the use of (void) is that too many current C
compilers don't support it, and don't know what the void cast should go to.
Many of the best of the microcomputer C compilers don't have it, and there
is an argument which runs: "C is small enough and simple enough to run on
micros, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with micros (NO FLAMES), and
backwards compatability is important."

	For all of my joking about a ^= b ^= a ^= b, the real reason not to add
things to a language is just this.  Why should I need to spend another $500
on a good compiler?  I am not that rich. (void) is therefore a THORN to
portability.  Even some UNIX lookalike compilers don't support it.

Jon Shapiro
Haverford College

UNIX is a trademark of big brother.