Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucsdhub!esosun!seismo!uunet!vsi!sullivan
From: sullivan@vsi.UUCP (Michael T Sullivan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Unnecessary parenthesis
Message-ID: <751@vsi.UUCP>
Date: 8 Jul 88 19:36:20 GMT
References: <326@marob.MASA.COM> <2550075@hpisod2.HP.COM>
Organization: V-Systems, Inc. -- Santa Ana, CA
Lines: 34

In article <2550075@hpisod2.HP.COM>, decot@hpisod2.HP.COM (Dave Decot) writes:
> 
> Return is not a function call, and it shouldn't look like one.
> 
> > >	return(0);	/* one wonders why the () are there */
> > 
> > 1) Because it looks consistent.
> 
> With what?  Why do you want to make it easier to confuse function calls
> with statements that don't come back?

Like exit() or abort()???

> I see no reason to add further confusion by making flow control look like
> a function call.  I use "return e;" because it's less cluttered and more
> distinct.


When I have something like:

	return(a == b ? c : d);

I think it looks better than:

	return a == b ? c : d;

Maybe if return had a space between the paren like while, for, and switch
everybody would be happy (and there'd be peace in the world, and no more
smog, ...).  I think I'll try that for a while and see how it goes.

-- 
Michael Sullivan			{uunet|attmail}!vsi!sullivan
V-Systems, Inc.  Santa Ana, CA		sullivan@vsi.com
ons, workstations, workstations, workstations, workstations, workstations, work