Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 21:42:54 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Steve Howe <un_x@anchorage.net> Cc: "Kevin P. Neal" <kpneal@pobox.com>, freebsd-hackers <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Borland 16bit bcc vs cc/gcc (float) Message-ID: <10742.865140174@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 31 May 1997 19:10:53 -0800." <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970531190322.1359C-100000@aak.anchorage.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> own stack. further, from what i gather, it's good to call exit() on a > real OS when you finish a program in case there a hidden/extraneous > clean-up functions that need to be completed. and since exit doesn't Uh, this is all just a shameless attempt at justification-after-the-fact, I'm sorry. ;-) Calling exit() gratuitously when you're not explicitly trying to indicate a short-cut is just bad programming style and any instructions gained are more than offset by the general obfuscation added by calling exit() on any grounds other than "we really need to bail out NOW", which is the more general interpretation of it in the field. Main returns a value, OK? Get used to it. ;-) Also, as others have pointed out, you won't call the destructions for things which are going out of scope in main() if you just call exit() in a C++ program, so it's also a pretty evil habit to get into just on the grounds of transition shock alone. Please, there are impressionable youngsters on this mailing list and I'll thank you to keep your odd C perversions hidden away in private, where they belong! ;-) :-) Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?10742.865140174>