Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Whaddaya think?
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 07:39:36 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <20240617003207.452@kylheku.com>
References: <666ded36$0$958$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
 <87ed8x4zjl.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <666f10b7$0$1412896$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
 <v4o7om$er18$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 09:39:36 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="05bafc0e4e4620b91ac884490c0b1f07";
	logging-data="585479"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18lwINR2xT6tKk1OkF6Ax6NKHkCClEt13M="
User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.4-9 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xYbvgOtNqgaBeajfvZ2r3xGJf5g=
Bytes: 3225

On 2024-06-17, James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On 6/16/24 12:20, DFS wrote:
>> On 6/15/2024 6:22 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> writes:
> ...
>>>> 	return(0);
>>>
>>> A minor style point: a return statement doesn't require parentheses.
>>> IMHO using parentheses make it look too much like a function call.  I'd
>>> write `return 0;`, or more likely I'd just omit it, since falling off
>>> the end of main does an implicit `return 0;` (starting in C99).
>> 
>> Can't omit it.  It's required by my brain.

I think DFS might mean that they find themselves unable to omit the
unnecessary return 0 statement entirely.

I also hate it; I feel that the implicit return 0 in main is a
misfeature that was added due to caving in to bad programmers.

Making int main(void) { } correct is like legalizing weed.
Potheads are still potheads. Since I'm not one, I write a
return statement in main.

> The parentheses you're putting in are completely unrelated to the use of
> parentheses in _Generic(), function calls, compound literals,
> sizeof(type name), alignof(), _BitInt(), _Atomic(), typeof(),
> typeof_unqual(), alignas(), function declarators, static_assert(), if(),
> switch(for(), while(), do ... while(), function-like macro definitions
> and invocations or cast expressions. In all of those cases, the
> parentheses are part of the grammar.

Speaking of while, the do/while construct does not require parentheses
in order to disambiguate anything, since it has a mandatory semicolon.
Yet, it still has them.

There would be no issue with this grammar:

  iteration_statement := 'do' statement 'while' expression ';'

the fragment "'while' expression ';'" is exactly like
"'return' expression ';'".

Obviously, the parentheses are there for consistency with the
top-testing while loop.

It seems that in some people's eyes, the same consistency should extend
to the return statement.

More widespread than that is a practice of always using parentheses
around the argument of sizeof, even if it's an expression and not
a type.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca