The Lounge - CodeProject

jochance23-Dec-23 8:55

23-Dec-23 8:55

Other people can potentially discover 'historical' things though.

They won't 'crack' the inanity of "The lazy fox jumps over the big brown hog at midnight in ballet slippers before foie gras with the fellas...."

Re: Well that isn't good.

DerekT-P22-Dec-23 5:56

DerekT-P

22-Dec-23 5:56

I've heard on other social media of AI voice-alike scams. But I had a learning experience last week, (the learning being not to be so stupid). Got a text from an unknown number "Hi Dad, I broke my phone, lost all my contacts; this is my new number". I assumed my son (my daughter doesn't usually do stuff like break her phone) so I texted back "OK; weren't they backed up?" Got a reply "I thought so, but seems not". At that point I actually deleted my son's old number and added the new, then wondered "Maybe it's my daughter?" so stupidly texted back "are you Adam or Beth?" (I used their real names, not Adam/Beth). Got a text back "Adam". So all seemed very normal, not suspicious. Told my wife who immediately called "Adam" on his old number, and had a perfectly normal chat, no prob with the phone at all. Stupid me.

Anyway, if I ever get something like that again, I'll just call back on the number I have for them.

Also had emails recently saying "We have a delivery for you today - will you be in between 1 and 2pm?" Well... that's too blatantly stupid for even me to fall for! Laugh | :laugh:

Take care, folks!

Telegraph marker posts ... nothing to do with IT
Phasmid email discussion group ... also nothing to do with IT
Beekeeping and honey site ... still nothing to do with IT

Re: Well that isn't good.

jschell22-Dec-23 6:07

jschell

22-Dec-23 6:07

DerekT-P wrote:
Also had emails recently saying...

I got a text 'from' UPS which said they had a problem with the delivery and I needed to click the link.

Of course I knew that was stupid and I just deleted it.

However I was in fact expecting a delivery that very day and that reminded me of that. So I checked and there was my package. If I hadn't gotten that spam I probably wouldn't have checked until the next day.

( C/C++ historical question) was there a point in time where adding a return at the end of a void function was required ?

Maximilien21-Dec-23 2:35

Maximilien

21-Dec-23 2:35

I see a lot of things like this in the project I'm working on:

Was it necessary at some point in time ?

Was this an ancient C syntax ?

C++

void f(){
  // .... do something
  return;
}

I would not be surprised if I see old K&R syntax somewhere like this

C++

void f( a ) 
 int a 
{
}

CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair

Re: ( C/C++ historical question) was there a point in time where adding a return at the end of a void function was required ?

0x01AA21-Dec-23 2:50

0x01AA

21-Dec-23 2:50

Was it necessary at some point in time ?

I would say no, but I can't answer it definitively. But in the 35 years I've been programming C++, I've never been forced to write a 'return' at the end of a void method.

[Edit]
Neither I have been forced (by some older compilers from Borland) to write a return even it was a 'non-void' method. Which ended usually in a desaster, especally when the return type was float or double Sniff | :^)

modified 21-Dec-23 8:58am.

Re: ( C/C++ historical question) was there a point in time where adding a return at the end of a void function was required ?

k505421-Dec-23 4:14

k5054

21-Dec-23 4:14

I have a vague recollection that in K&R days, the value of a function was the value of the last executed statement. so

f(x)
int x;
{
   x += 3;
}

would return whatever x+3 evaluated to. I also seem to recall that a function return had to fit in a register. Not sure if either of those are correct. It was a long long time ago. But not in a galaxy far away.

"A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants"
Chuckles the clown

Re: ( C/C++ historical question) was there a point in time where adding a return at the end of a void function was required ?

Bruno van Dooren21-Dec-23 21:59

Bruno van Dooren

21-Dec-23 21:59

That is a bit similar to powershell which looks just enough like a programming language to lull you into believing it is. In powershell, the return of a function is any value evaluation that is not assigned to something.
And if your function uses function calls, that means it can be anything and everything.

Re: ( C/C++ historical question) was there a point in time where adding a return at the end of a void function was required ?

CPallini21-Dec-23 2:54

CPallini

21-Dec-23 2:54

I think it was never required.
However, someone wrote[^]:

If no return statement appears in a function definition, control automatically returns to the calling function after the last statement of the called function is executed. In this case, the return value of the called function is undefined. If the function has a return type other than void, it's a serious bug, and the compiler prints a warning diagnostic message. If the function has a void return type, this behavior is okay, but may be considered poor style. Use a plain return statement to make your intent clear.

Note, it's not me. I think omitting the return statement in a void function it is fine.

"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto

Re: ( C/C++ historical question) was there a point in time where adding a return at the end of a void function was required ?

obermd21-Dec-23 3:44

obermd

21-Dec-23 3:44

I've seen similar from other sources besides Microsoft.

Re: ( C/C++ historical question) was there a point in time where adding a return at the end of a void function was required ?

Amarnath S21-Dec-23 2:56

Amarnath S

21-Dec-23 2:56

Had heard more than 20 years ago, that having a return statement at the end of a void function in C++ was indeed a harmless thing; the compiler wouldn't complain, and things would work just fine. Just that some programmers prefer to have a return in every function they write.

Re: ( C/C++ historical question) was there a point in time where adding a return at the end of a void function was required ?

Mircea Neacsu21-Dec-23 3:05

Mircea Neacsu

21-Dec-23 3:05

Maximilien wrote:
Was it necessary at some point in time ?

Necessary, no. Used, yes, back in the day probably because people were used mostly with FORTRAN where each function and "subroutine" needed at least one return statement.

Mircea

Re: ( C/C++ historical question) was there a point in time where adding a return at the end of a void function was required ?

jschell21-Dec-23 4:11

jschell

21-Dec-23 4:11

Maximilien wrote:
Was it necessary at some point in time ?

Both forms are specifically allowed then and now.

From "C Programming Language" 2nd Edition (oldest I have and copyright is 1978.)

"A function need not return a value; a return statement with no expression causes control, but no useful value, to be returned to the caller, as does "falling off the end" of a function by reaching the terminating right brace."

Possible though that earlier compilers required it.

More likely though that someone liked one form or the other. Perhaps even forced that on others.
Requiring it would be fallout from methods with a return value. Older compilers would not warn on exit without a value for those. So the calling method would then end up with whatever garbage was on the call stack.

I did not find the same syntax in "The C++ Programming Language Special Edition" (Copyright 2000) but I didn't look all that hard.

There are however examples that provide two different void functions. One which exits with return and one which does not. So works for C++ also.

-----------------------------------------------------
Just for fun this is LEGAL as documented in the C++ book above.

void g(int* p);

void h(int* p) { return g(p); }

Text explains that is needed for templates.
But if I was reviewing code and saw that anywhere but a template I would mark it as an error.

Re: ( C/C++ historical question) was there a point in time where adding a return at the end of a void function was required ?

PIEBALDconsult21-Dec-23 5:29

PIEBALDconsult

21-Dec-23 5:29

jschell wrote:
Possible though that earlier compilers required it.

You remind me that my first introduction to C was with Whitesmith C (on a VAX), and maybe that could have required it.

Re: ( C/C++ historical question) was there a point in time where adding a return at the end of a void function was required ?

Gary Wheeler21-Dec-23 6:46

Gary Wheeler

21-Dec-23 6:46

jschell wrote:

void h(int* p) { return g(p); }

Yuck. That's deceptive to me, as it makes it look like g(p) returns a value. I'd prefer writing it like this:

void h(int* p)
{
    g(p);
    return; // if you really feel the need
}

Software Zen: delete this;

Re: ( C/C++ historical question) was there a point in time where adding a return at the end of a void function was required ?

hpcoder217-Jan-24 16:12

hpcoder2

17-Jan-24 16:12

Actually, if g(p) returns void, then this is definitely allowed. Makes generic programming easier, with less boilerplate, and faster compilation. Not sure what is supposed to happen if g(p) is something other than void - it should really be a syntax error.

Re: ( C/C++ historical question) was there a point in time where adding a return at the end of a void function was required ?

PIEBALDconsult21-Dec-23 4:18

PIEBALDconsult

21-Dec-23 4:18

Unsure, maybe, C back in the 80s. Or Pascal? But I always make sure each and every C function (or C# Method) has exactly one return statement. (I think I've written only one C# Method with more than one return, but that was an unusual situation.)

I agree that it "shows intent". Or potentially may help with debugging, though that's not usually critical either.
At the very least you know that it was written by a developer who has a long history of development, not one of these kids who is only interested in doing the absolute minimum and can't be trusted.

Re: ( C/C++ historical question) was there a point in time where adding a return at the end of a void function was required ?

0x01AA21-Dec-23 5:02

0x01AA

21-Dec-23 5:02

Quote:
But I always make sure each and every C function (or C# Method) has exactly one return statement.

I followed the same for nearly 30 years.
Meanwhile I switched at least for 'void methods' to return imediatelly something does not fit. This to avoid 'nested if'

Still I'm fighting with that when a method needs to return a value. Here I stay with the pattern to have only _one_ return.... Sigh | :sigh:

Re: ( C/C++ historical question) was there a point in time where adding a return at the end of a void function was required ?

honey the codewitch21-Dec-23 4:25

honey the codewitch

21-Dec-23 4:25

I believe it never was, as it was meant to be more or less compatible with C code, which doesn't require it.

Interestingly you can call main() from inside your C app, but not in C++.

Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix

Re: ( C/C++ historical question) was there a point in time where adding a return at the end of a void function was required ?

Gary Wheeler21-Dec-23 7:06

Gary Wheeler

21-Dec-23 7:06

honey the codewitch wrote:
Interestingly you can call main() from inside your C app, but not in C++.

Really? I didn't know that.

I'll admit it's probably not a good idea, and there are easy ways around the prohibition, ... Hmm. I think I've figured some of it out.

There are multiple valid forms of main(...), and implementation-defined arguments are allowed. Allowing calls to it might require too much special case handling between the compiler and linker to ensure a match between the call and the actual implementation.
Another factor might be runtime initialization that takes place in main()'s prolog.
Objects declared static could potentially call main() before it had been called for the actual application startup.

Sounds like the prohibition is a good way to make the compiler, linker, and runtime initialization job easier.

Software Zen: delete this;

Re: ( C/C++ historical question) was there a point in time where adding a return at the end of a void function was required ?

honey the codewitch21-Dec-23 7:08

honey the codewitch

21-Dec-23 7:08

Part of it might be static initialization behavior in C++ precludes it, but I don't know enough about the machinations of all that to be certain of anything.

Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix

Re: ( C/C++ historical question) was there a point in time where adding a return at the end of a void function was required ?

CPallini21-Dec-23 7:41

CPallini

21-Dec-23 7:41

This piece of code

C++

int main()
{
  main();
}

compiles fine. Anyway, I didn't try to run the executable. Laugh | :laugh:

"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto

Re: ( C/C++ historical question) was there a point in time where adding a return at the end of a void function was required ?

honey the codewitch21-Dec-23 7:42

honey the codewitch

21-Dec-23 7:42

Hmm, well I've never actually tried it. I was relying on a lecture on C++.

I doubt it's standard though. I'm pretty sure dude knew what he was on about. He wasn't a nobody, but I forget his title.

Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix

Re: ( C/C++ historical question) was there a point in time where adding a return at the end of a void function was required ?

CPallini21-Dec-23 10:25

CPallini

21-Dec-23 10:25

It looks 'the dude' was right. The C++ standard doesn't allow to call main recursively (and states that main 'shall not be used within a program').
Nevertheless, g++ allows that. You have to use -pedantic in order to get a warning.

"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto

Re: ( C/C++ historical question) was there a point in time where adding a return at the end of a void function was required ?

honey the codewitch21-Dec-23 10:26

honey the codewitch

21-Dec-23 10:26

I don't remember his name and couldn't find the video at gunpoint so "the dude" abides. Laugh | :laugh:

Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix

Re: ( C/C++ historical question) was there a point in time where adding a return at the end of a void function was required ?

megaadam21-Dec-23 11:55

megaadam

21-Dec-23 11:55

Agree. Such a requirement would break C compatibility.

"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"

Use Ctrl+Left/Right to switch messages, Ctrl+Up/Down to switch threads, Ctrl+Shift+Left/Right to switch pages.

Welcome to the Lounge