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: #include <complex.h> (complex)snuggle(...); -- Brane -- Branko Čibej Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com
