Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!husc6!necntc!ima!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock.ISC.COM (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: The D Programming Language
Message-ID: <2810@haddock.ISC.COM>
Date: 2 Mar 88 00:59:03 GMT
References: <11702@brl-adm.ARPA> <243@eagle_snax.UUCP> <2245@geac.UUCP> <2718@mmintl.UUCP> <1988Feb25.202237.8688@utzoo.uucp> <1020@maccs.UUCP> <7362@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Reply-To: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston
Lines: 15
Summary: get rid of int-for-void along with implicit-int

In article <7362@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
>In article <1020@maccs.UUCP> gordan@maccs.UUCP (gordan) writes:
>>... defaulting to int.  _Has_ this been changed in ANSI C?
>
>No, like other warts, since this is widely used in correctly-written
>(according to K&R rules) C code, and since it does not pose any true
>technical problems, it must continue to be tolerated.  Fix it in "D".

In a similar vein, using "int" (or the "implied int" you get by leaving out
the type) for a function which returns no value should disappear.

Hey Doug, couldn't this be deprecated on the same grounds as old-style
function declarations?  A new syntax ("void") has been standardized which does
the job better, and the old syntax makes it harder to diagnose certain bugs.

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