Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!faline!ulysses!allegra!princeton!udel!gatech!purdue!umd5!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: functions defaulting to int
Message-ID: <7111@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 16 Jan 88 08:59:41 GMT
References: <528@gtx.com>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 24
Posted: Sat Jan 16 03:59:41 1988

In article <528@gtx.com> al@gtx.UUCP (Al Filipski) writes:
>(Are declarations for library functions required by the standard?  where
>will the system call declarations go?)

Yes, each header defines/declares the associated macros/functions.
"A place for everything and everything in its place."
Note, however, that in most cases a macro is permitted, so if you
really want the function (for example, to obtain a pointer to it)
you have to not only #undef the name but also explicitly declare
the function yourself (in accordance with the standard's interface
specification for the function).  So your example would really not
be any easier under ANSI C.

>In my opinion, one of the main design flaws in  C is the rule that
>makes procedures int by default.

From today's point of view, yes, but before the advent of "void"
it was quite convenient.  Of course it can't be changed now, due
to the amount of correct existing code that would be invalidated.

By the way, failure to properly declare malloc() is a common bug.
It seems that since everyone has to cast its return result to the
proper pointer type, they fail to observe that letting it default
to int before the cast is simply wrong.