🚀 go-pugleaf

In article: <4gnb5s$bed@solutions.solon.com>  "Thomas A. Stolz" <stolz@mtm.syr.ge.com> 
writes:
 > 
 > Several of my coworkers have recently brought to my attention published code
 > which always casts unused return values to (void).  For example, this code 
 > would use the statement:
 > 
 > 	(void)strcpy( dest, src );
 > 
 > rather than the statement:
 > 
 > 	strcpy( dest, src );
 > 
 > I see no advantage in using the cast.  In fact, I would tend to believe it
 > would make the code harder to read, especially for inexperienced programmers.
 > But, I'm curious and would like to know the pros and cons of each form.  I
 > would appreciate any information which discusses this topic.
 > 
 > 	[lint has a warning:  foo returns a value which is {sometimes,always}
 > 	 ignored.  The cast is to shut it up by making it explicit that one
 > 	 is calling for side effects, and that testing for failure does not
 > 	 apply.  There may be more to it than that, though. -mod]
 > 
 > Thanks!
 > Tom
 > 
 > 
The reason for doing this is maintainability. Anyone subsequently 
trying to understand the code can see that the function was called for 
its side-effects and the result *intentionally* thrown away. This 
practice is often mandated in coding standards for safety-critical
applications. It also helps to force the coder to think before ignoring 
the error returns from system calls.
--
Richard P. Parkins, M. A.     rpp@pires.co.uk
Pi Technology Ltd.            +44 (0)1223 441434
Opinions expressed were mine at the time of posting,
otherwise all possible disclaimers apply.