On 05.04.2013 16:20, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Guys, we're all overlooking the primary reason to explicitly include the
> "(void)": it makes the function feel better.
> A function who works hard to do a job only to have some of that effort
> ignored could eventually develop issues with self-confidence, ultimately
> leading toward a lifestyle full of destructive habits. Such functions are,
> as we know from experience in meatspace, rarely as productive as they could
> be, and soon become the unwilling targets of whispered dismissals about how
> much potential they once held.
> Nestled between two parentheticals, with no spaces to separate them (perish
> the thought!), that function instead feels the warmth and closelness of his
> soft-edged neighbors, the value of his purpose, and the assurance that while
> his return value was not needed -- in this instance, at least -- his effort
> is nevertheless recognized as having been exerted. And that's comforting.
> Let's love our functions.
> (void)snuggle(you, me);
> -- C-Mike
Ah, a light dawns! And you're right, of course. Although I have to
wonder if a void snuggle is really up to dispelling that empty feeling
of loneliness on Friday night after a hard week at work.
So allow me to suggest we adopt C99 as the new baseline language
standard, so that we can write the above as:
Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com
Received on 2013-04-05 21:38:56 CEST