Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!ll-xn!cit-vax!amdahl!jon
From: jon@amdahl.UUCP (Jonathan Leech)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: expr?(void):(void)
Message-ID: <3502@amdahl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 31-Jul-86 14:18:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdahl.3502
Posted: Thu Jul 31 14:18:38 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Aug-86 04:27:44 EDT
References: <501@bunny.UUCP> <500@copper.UUCP> <273@watmath.UUCP> <5826@think.COM>
Distribution: net
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 23

In article <5826@think.COM>, sam@think.COM (Sam Kendall) writes:
> ...
> Enough cheap shots.  Here is an example of using void in "?:".  Suppose
> you are writing a stdio-like package, and one function has this
> specification:
> 
> 	void PutC(Stream, char);
> 
> But for efficiency you want to write PutC as a macro.  So you define it
> like this:
> 
> extern void _WriteBuf(Stream);
> #define PutC(s, c)  (--(s)->count >= 0 ? (void) (*(s)->bufp++ = (c)) \
> 				       : _WriteBuf(s, c))

    I won't argue with the desirability of being able to do this, but
I believe your example is poorly chosen. I/O functions can always fail
and some indication of this ought to be returned to the user where
possible, even though few bother to check usage like this.

    -- Jon Leech (...seismo!amdahl!jon)
    UTS Products / Amdahl Corporation
    __@/