Sujet : Re: Whaddaya think?
De : janis_papanagnou+ng (at) *nospam* hotmail.com (Janis Papanagnou)
Groupes : comp.lang.cDate : 18. Jun 2024, 08:12:40
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v4r8gp$17ck4$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
On 17.06.2024 16:41, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
DFS <nospam@dfs.com> writes:
>
Moving forward, return 0 it is.
By the way, you might have retained return (exp); from old C. C
originally required the parentheses, but they got dropped quite early
on. The syntax in K&R (1st edition) does not require them, but almost
all the code example in the book still have them!
This is an interesting observation! (That I can confirm.)
That's probably why originally I also used parenthesis.
I saw the examples but didn't inspect the syntax appendix.
But how did the early compiler behave?
Did they follow the code samples' syntax or the formal syntax?
I took a while to drop them as I came to C from B where they were always
required so I'd got the habit.
I dropped them as soon as I noticed that it's possible.
Janis
Whaddaya think?
Re: Whaddaya think?
