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