Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ima!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock.UUCP (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: impossible problem for find(1)?
Message-ID: <477@haddock.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-May-87 14:22:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: haddock.477
Posted: Mon May  4 14:22:48 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 5-May-87 03:20:06 EDT
References: <2645@phri.UUCP> <6454@mimsy.UUCP> <5797@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Reply-To: karl@haddock.ISC.COM.UUCP (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston
Lines: 13

In article <474@haddock.UUCP> karl@haddock.ISC.COM.UUCP (Karl Heuer) writes:
>(Most versions of lint -- and X3J11, as of May86 -- don't even insist that
>void functions be declared void.)

I suppose I should clarify this.  The first "void" means "logically void",
i.e. a function with no return value; the second refers to the actual
declaration.  For example, "int nullf() {}" is acceptable to the lint I just
tried, and is still legitimate in X3J11 unless they've changed recently.

(In my opinion, it should be retained for backward compatibility, but should
be marked as deprecated.)

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint