Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 12:44:48 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <vud87h$1fups$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vspbjh$8dvd$1@dont-email.me> <vu01k7$1bfv2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vu0720$1dva7$1@dont-email.me> <vu2hmg$3jn88$1@dont-email.me>
 <vu2mkc$3noft$1@dont-email.me> <vu38da$735n$1@dont-email.me>
 <vu3j7s$g755$1@dont-email.me> <87ecxmv4t4.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vu401g$reom$1@dont-email.me> <20250420200823.908@kylheku.com>
 <vu5bqp$230jl$2@dont-email.me> <20250421113640.839@kylheku.com>
 <vu67up$2ubvr$1@dont-email.me> <20250421125957.29@kylheku.com>
 <vu6kkt$392e6$1@dont-email.me> <vu6q3b$3jhq1$1@paganini.bofh.team>
 <vu7r19$da0o$1@dont-email.me> <20250422103555.547@kylheku.com>
 <vu8sm8$18fhc$2@dont-email.me> <vub14h$3d9kt$1@dont-email.me>
 <vub8rh$3kfla$1@dont-email.me> <20250423113224.711@kylheku.com>
 <vucpu4$1418h$1@dont-email.me> <vucsjf$159um$1@dont-email.me>
 <vud55j$1e28s$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 13:44:50 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a15eea173108e872714458e11e12d2b4";
	logging-data="1571644"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19fxac0I+m+oD4DN/9Q9+1D"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HLM2SvrSlnrO59PuP5FfjCtl9Qc=
In-Reply-To: <vud55j$1e28s$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 3736

On 24/04/2025 11:52, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 09:26:23 +0100
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled:
>> On 24/04/2025 08:40, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 18:43:33 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wibbled:
>>>> On 2025-04-23, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 23/04/2025 16:31, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/04/2025 22:03, bart wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Too few levels of functions and/or macros (there is no semantic
>>>>>> difference between macros and functions in this matter)
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a great deal of difference. Functions tend to be well-formed in
>>>>> their inputs and outputs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Macros take some abitrary blocks of syntax and return another arbitrary
>>>>> block of syntax:
>>>>>
>>>>>        #define INDEX(a, b, y) a y b
>>>>>        INDEX(a, i, [) ];
>>>>
>>>> While that's terrible, I've never seen anything like it in the wild.
>>>
>>> He loves coming up with unrealistic code examples that no decent programmer
>>> would ever write then points and says look how bad macros must be. Using that
>>
>>> approach you can easily come up with highly contorted code that no one can
>> read
>>> as the Obfuscated C contest proves.
>>>
>>
>> And you do like totally ignoring the context. This was an example of how
>> macros work compared with how functions work.
> 
> You think anyone in this group needed to be told? Macros arn't supposed to
> work the same way as functions or there'd be no point having them!

I was replying to this which implies the opposite:

DB:
 > Too few levels of functions and/or macros (there is no semantic
 > difference between macros and functions in this matter)

MD:
 > Not always. Heard of void?

I /knew/ you seize upon that! Then I might also say: "You think anyone 
in this group needed to be told?".

FWIW, in my language, and a few others, 'functions' ALWAYS return values.