From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat May 31 21:42:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA05529 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 31 May 1997 21:42:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA05524 for ; Sat, 31 May 1997 21:42:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id VAA10746; Sat, 31 May 1997 21:42:54 -0700 (PDT) To: Steve Howe cc: "Kevin P. Neal" , freebsd-hackers Subject: Re: Borland 16bit bcc vs cc/gcc (float) In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 31 May 1997 19:10:53 -0800." Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 21:42:54 -0700 Message-ID: <10742.865140174@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > 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