🚀 go-pugleaf

On 16 Apr 1996 21:41:21 -0600 in article </REdxQ9ytt2Y089yn@csn.net>
    thads@csn.net (Thad Smith) (Thad Smith) wrote:

>In article <829573502snz@wbriscoe.demon.co.uk>,
>walter briscoe <walter@wbriscoe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>I recently had trouble moving some K&R code to ISO C.
>>
>>Specifically, a function without a return statement was used to return a
>>value with an implicit return at the } terminating the function.

<snip>

>I haven't worked with much K&R code, so don't know how valid that is.
>I suspect that there is lots of legacy code with an implicit int
>return type that actually returns values.  My early impression of C
>was that much code was designed to be parsimonious.

>The following proposal would be somewhat better: if the return type is
>explicitly typed, the return statement must provide a value.
>Someone will surely trot out some existing working code that violates
>this, however.

>In the meantime, use a good lint.

Most modern compilers, as far as I have seen, provide a (suppressible) warning
in this situation.  It could be viewed as a quality-of-implementation issue.

--
Peter Curran                               pcurran@inforamp.net