Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 13:30:21 -0500
From: Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Set the result of void function
References: <fafcddea-dda4-4e4e-8475-496c0e4bfcf0@googlegroups.com> <8c29ee78-bc72-41b4-8c06-880f15ebd63e@googlegroups.com> <oqb28b$eek$1@dont-email.me> <001b7bdd-f28a-4747-80da-81404481b320@googlegroups.com> <74b5ddce-96ec-48aa-a16c-a5a4207c17fe@googlegroups.com> <lnmv5i22z2.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <9546ff45-2666-4f32-8905-8d4baba8a74d@googlegroups.com> <877ewm1ook.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <65ac971c-10a1-41b1-876d-cdded04ea432@googlegroups.com> <oqfgaq$b8q$1@dont-email.me> <lntvzoyv6u.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <xFQyB.1218936$tN5.1165921@fx27.am4> <lnh8voyq2d.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <QzSyB.796199$uh.155860@fx28.am4> <ln1smsymbr.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <C6TyB.1386148$py6.1076342@fx22.am4> <6308c8a5-6a1e-4667-bac4-1cdaf18e7e55@googlegroups.com> <ueUyB.1549783$WI6.1384739@fx30.am4> <03c7177e-47fd-4300-96e1-5e702dc377dc@googlegroups.com> <BqVyB.864067$sC5.392864@fx45.am4> <81bddf68-70c6-4c85-a218-19dcbfb9249e@googlegroups.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 19:30:21 +0100
Message-ID: <87efqpuzlu.fsf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:edUQwc+R/1HMwV54Xo0J7CUvMy4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Lines: 18
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-sDHbCCwPf5LZvzZp01wRBVRooXRhQL3UkQwltamm9XySissHsyI1xSV9MAFIO859bc6TLIiVHTH980P!anQsJzRF43LuxMHV01AizBb4qqVboaY34ROAxvUuAVXKXY1pU5se6kFYTYDqPpNSNiA/wQ==
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2423
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:120568

jameskuyper@verizon.net writes:

> No, we're not, and I'd prefer that we were. What would have to be changed in C
> for you to admit that it does have subroutines? Are you suggesting, for
> instance, that replacing
>
>    void f(void); 
>
> with 
>
>    subroutine f(void);
>
> is necessary in order for f() to be considered a subroutine?

What you must recall when asking these questions of Bart is that he has
repeatedly proved himself to be dumber than a box of rocks.

I suggest you keep that in mind when deciding whether to pursue this debate.