[Uml-devel] Re: CVS developer access

[Jens Krüger]

Hi,

Am Montag, 14. Oktober 2002 18:12 schrieb Sebastian Stein:
> Jens Krüger <je.krueger at web.de> [021014 17:45]:
> > that the readability of a code grows, you write a return statement at the
> > end of a void function.  I know that the current compiler do not expect a
> > return statment if one leaves
> > the function. In the current specification of C++ is written, that the
> > compiler add automatically the 'return 0' statement if it is missed. I
> > don't know, what the next generation of compilers tell to this problem. I
> > try to write my code in that way, that it looks good, is efficient and
> > short. The only exception from the shortness of code  is the addition of
> > the return statement in a void function. If all other say, we should not
> > write this return statements, I will respect this decision.

I know a lot of problems in respect of the C++ standard in the VC++. From my 
point of view is the VC++ a nice toy for Windows Programmers, but Microsoft 
is not interested in standard they didn't made self. 

>
> Have you tried this with VC++ 6.0 for Windows? I mean it is a little bit
> offtopic but if I remember right, vc++ will tell you, that a void function
> is not allowed to return anything. So the compiler doesn't accept return;
> in a void function.
>
> Nevertheless, if the source compiles I don't have a preference about a
> return should be added or not.
>
> Steinchen

--