Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 01:59:06 -0500 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Style 9 nitpicking question Message-ID: <20010817015906.Q38066@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <20010817162340.O34503-100000@besplex.bde.org>; from bde@zeta.org.au on Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 04:31:36PM %2B1000 References: <200108161551.f7GFpLK72129@grimreaper.grondar.za> <20010817162340.O34503-100000@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> [010817 01:40] wrote: > On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Mark Murray wrote: > > > Sorta :-) Its often not a useful warning (most particularly for > > certain functions), and the (void) cast offends me because it is > > useless and obfuscating. > > I don't like it much either, but it's normal practice in BSD code. Actually it's quite useful, it means: "I the author of this code am fully aware that this function returns a value, however I know that it either will always have a certain outcome, or that the outcome doesn't matter because I'm attempting to salvage something, or that at this point a failure is of no concern." I'm sure one could add to that list, imo it's good programming style to do so when justified, however it's not acceptable just to do that in order to give the false impression of the previous statements. -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] Ok, who wrote this damn function called '??'? And why do my programs keep crashing in it? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010817015906.Q38066>