On Apr 5, 2013 4:29 AM, "Daniel Shahaf" <danie...@elego.de> wrote: > > Daniel Shahaf wrote on Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 11:20:02 +0300: > > Branko Čibej wrote on Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 08:14:36 +0200: > > > On 04.04.2013 23:17, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > > > FWIW, lgo's argument makes sense to me. I see no reason to remove > > > > (void) casts that make our code more readable because some other > > > > codebases use them to silence lint. > > > > > > My point is that they do not make the code more readable. Moreover: when > > > someone does turn on the extra compiler options to find places where > > > return values are ignored, the (void)-cast calls will not be flagged. > ... > > > Who's to guarantee that the original author who decided to ignore the > > > return value and dropped the (void) tu^Wbreadcrumb was right? > > > > The bug here is ignoring the return value. Whether the cast is present > > or not is of secondary importance. > > Having the cast means two things: > > - It's easier for human readers to (a) see that there is a return value, > and (b) that said return value is being intentionally ignored. > > - It may suppress some ($CC, lint, ...) warnings. > > Whether it was actually correct to ignore the return value is simply > independent of the syntax that was used to ignore it.
Agreed. I want to know if/when we are consciously dropping a value on the floor. As a reader of the source. Thx, -g
