Re: int a = a

From	Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: int a = a
Date	2025-04-29 13:34 -0700
Organization	None to speak of
Message-ID	<87plguzozg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> (permalink)
References	(6 earlier) <vrelvn$12ddq$1@dont-email.me> <87sen8u5d5.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86zfhgni2a.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87cyect356.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86bjse917i.fsf@linuxsc.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>> [how to indicate a variable not being used is okay]
>>> [some quoted text rearranged]
>>>
>>>> Unless I'm missing something, `(void)x` also has undefined beahvior
>>>> if x is uninitialized,
>>>
>>> Right.  Using (void)&x is better.
>>
>> I'm not convinced -- and it's far less idiomatic.
>
> Both phrases are idiomatic.  What you mean is one phrase is more
> common than the other.  More common doesn't mean better.  Recall
> Dijkstra's dictum, not to conclude that something is more convenient
> just because it's more conventional.

[...]

Just so you're aware, I've read your post and I have nothing more
to say about it.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: int a = a Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-29 13:12 -0700
  Re: int a = a Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-29 13:34 -0700

csiph-web