Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mcvax!jack
From: jack@mcvax.uucp (Jack Jansen)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: is a void function invocation an expression or a statement?
Message-ID: <7046@boring.mcvax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 10-Aug-86 17:29:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: boring.7046
Posted: Sun Aug 10 17:29:26 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 12-Aug-86 17:08:19 EDT
References: <501@bunny.UUCP> <500@copper.UUCP> <273@watmath.UUCP>
Reply-To: jack@boring.uucp (Jack Jansen)
Organization: AMOEBA project, CWI, Amsterdam
Lines: 14
Summary: Why haven't they used the algol-68 model of void?
Apparently-To: rnews@mcvax



Something that has been bothering me since I read the C standard (well,
read.... paged through it), and came up again after this discussion
is the following: why haven't the C standardisers treated void like
in algol-68? There, void is a fullfledged type, having only one
value, also called void. This has a number of advantages: it makes
the standard simpler, it makes compilers simpler (no more special-casing
of void in variable definitions), and it would probably make life
easier for programs that produce C as output.

Are there any good reasons for not making void a normal type?
-- 
	Jack Jansen, jack@mcvax.UUCP
	The shell is my oyster.