Path: ...!news-out.netnews.com!postmaster.netnews.com!us12.netnews.com!not-for-mail
X-Trace: DXC=J4_3n=N1laWgmNYUb<e5_\HWonT5<]0T]Q;nb^V>PUfV`L[ofA1LK4QL]Xbg<imJ2T>VP6X<4Dm]VImggNeQQDR^WjB\<Me8\AW@GM\IYO6WZT>Oa:X5b?f8X
X-Complaints-To: support@blocknews.net
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 08:50:06 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Betterbird (Windows)
From: DFS <nospam@dfs.com>
Subject: Re: Whaddaya think?
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
References: <666ded36$0$958$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
 <87ed8x4zjl.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <666f10b7$0$1412896$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
 <v4o7om$er18$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4o7om$er18$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <667030fa$0$7079$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
X-Trace: 1718628603 reader.netnews.com 7079 127.0.0.1:36845
Bytes: 2470

On 6/16/2024 10:41 PM, James Kuyper 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> The parentheses that you put in return(0) serve only for grouping
> purpose. They are semantically equivalent to the parentheses in "i =
> (0);"; they are just as legal, and just as pointless.
> 
> If your brain doesn't immediately understand why what I said above is
> true, I recommend retraining it.


I meant omit a return altogether.

But looking around, I rarely see return(0).  Don't know why it became a 
thing for me.

Moving forward, return 0 it is.