Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!husc6!cca!g-rh
From: g-rh@cca.CCA.COM (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: exit(-1)
Summary: Issue is portability and good programming practice
Keywords: exit, zero
Message-ID: <23160@cca.CCA.COM>
Date: 11 Jan 88 22:46:36 GMT
References: <502@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> <6935@brl-smoke.ARPA> <1179@wjvax.UUCP> <6983@brl-smoke.ARPA> <7208@ki4pv.uucp>
Reply-To: g-rh@CCA.CCA.COM.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Computer Corp. of America, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 30

In article <7208@ki4pv.uucp> tanner@ki4pv.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews) writes:
>
>Great!  You've found a solution that the VMS folks could live with.
>Unfortunately, those few unlucky enough to not be using VMS have been
>spending their lives coding progs which finish with exit(0) when they
>worked.  How about a slap in the face with a wet towel to them?

People who write exit(0) are violating the well known canons of good
programming practice -- "Thou shalt not embed magic numbers in your code".
In this case, 0 is a magic number -- it is a coded value and the wise
(read those who learned by being burnt) use symbolic names which are
defined in one place only.  [I am guilty of this also, so if I am 
pointing fingers, I share the guilt.]

Does it matter?  That depends.  If your only environment is one where
the magic number is always 0 then there is no harm in using 0.  If you
are writing code which will be ported across operating systems then it
matters a great deal.

I do not understand the wet towel bit.  If you are a Unix programmer in
the habit of using exit(0) you are not impacted by the standard.  Your
code will work the way it always did.  If you are writing portable code
you will be grateful for a standard mechanism for handling returns that
is not operating system dependent.

-- 

In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
	Richard Harter, SMDS  Inc.