[ircd-ratbox] Minor Patch

Paul-Andrew Joseph Miseiko esoteric at teardrop.ca
Thu Jun 3 22:05:44 EDT 2004

As long as you realized it was cosmetic.  ;)

I personally prefer to have a return at the end of my void function; and
there have been compilers in the past that required a return to exist in a
function or the function never returned... basically the compiler did not
understand that the end of scope was implicitly a returning state and it was
commonly referred to as falling off the end of the function.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dustin Marquess [mailto:jailbird at alcatraz.fdf.net] 
Sent: June 3, 2004 10:39 AM
To: Tomá¹ Janou¹ek
Cc: Paul-Andrew Joseph Miseiko
Subject: Re: [ircd-ratbox] Minor Patch

Exactly.  There's really not a reason to put a return at the end of a
void function, since you're not returning anything.

Some people like them because they feel is makes code easier to read.
My intent was just to remove one less warning from the compiler.  If
the developers feel that having the return there is better, then more
power to them :).


Tom Janouek <tomi at nomi.cz> wrote:
> Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 08:25:31AM -0400  Paul-Andrew Joseph Miseiko napsal:
> > What's wrong with putting a return at the end of a void function?
> It's a cosmetic thing, which might remove warnings in some compiler, if I
> understood correctly.

More information about the ircd-ratbox mailing list