Using "return" with parantheses?

[Mike Machuidel]

Hi,

I'm a game developer programming mostly in C and ASM for about 7 years.

Today at work a colleague (a C++ programmer) yelled at me I'm a bad C
programmer because I use "return(0); " instead of "return 0;".
He explained that "return" is not a function but a stament, like I
didn't know already. The other colleagues also argreed with him :(.

Can someone please explain what's so wrong about using "return" with
parantheses? I've used them like that from the beginning.

Thank you,
Mike Machuidel

[Andreas Kahari]

In article <3f************ ***********@new s.xs4all.nl>, Mike Machuidel wrote:

Hi,

I'm a game developer programming mostly in C and ASM for about 7 years.

Today at work a colleague (a C++ programmer) yelled at me I'm a bad C
programmer because I use "return(0); " instead of "return 0;".
He explained that "return" is not a function but a stament, like I
didn't know already. The other colleagues also argreed with him :(.

Can someone please explain what's so wrong about using "return" with
parantheses? I've used them like that from the beginning.

It's not wrong, it's just not needed.

See the FAQ at

http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q20.19.html

--
Andreas Kähäri

[Richard Bos]

Mike Machuidel <ma*******@yaho o.com> wrote:

Today at work a colleague (a C++ programmer) yelled at me I'm a bad C
programmer because I use "return(0); " instead of "return 0;".
He explained that "return" is not a function but a stament, like I
didn't know already. The other colleagues also argreed with him :(.

Can someone please explain what's so wrong about using "return" with
parantheses? I've used them like that from the beginning.

There's nothing wrong with it from a technical POV. Some people don't
like it as a style issue, because _they_ are the ones who keep
forgetting that return is not a function if they keep seeing the parens,
but that's their problem, not yours. FTR, I don't put parens around the
argument of return, but I won't shout at you for doing so.

Richard

[Tom St Denis]

"Andreas Kahari" <ak*******@free shell.org> wrote in message
news:sl******** **************@ vinland.freeshe ll.org...

In article <3f************ ***********@new s.xs4all.nl>, Mike Machuidel

wrote:

Hi,

I'm a game developer programming mostly in C and ASM for about 7 years.

Today at work a colleague (a C++ programmer) yelled at me I'm a bad C
programmer because I use "return(0); " instead of "return 0;".
He explained that "return" is not a function but a stament, like I
didn't know already. The other colleagues also argreed with him :(.

Can someone please explain what's so wrong about using "return" with
parantheses? I've used them like that from the beginning.

It's not wrong, it's just not needed.

See the FAQ at

http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q20.19.html

Technically whitespace isn't needed by the compiler either [at least to the
extent most people use it, obviously you need to seperate tokens...]

Tom

[Tom St Denis]

"Mike Machuidel" <ma*******@yaho o.com> wrote in message
news:3f******** *************** @news.xs4all.nl ...

Hi,

I'm a game developer programming mostly in C and ASM for about 7 years.

Today at work a colleague (a C++ programmer) yelled at me I'm a bad C
programmer because I use "return(0); " instead of "return 0;".
He explained that "return" is not a function but a stament, like I
didn't know already. The other colleagues also argreed with him :(.

Can someone please explain what's so wrong about using "return" with
parantheses? I've used them like that from the beginning.

It isn't wrong but if your company has standards for coding I suggest you
follow them.

Also "return(0); " does look stupid I'd put a space there "return (0);"

Though I'm against returning constants alltogether. You should have some

enum {
RES_OK,
RES_ERR
};

[etc]

and return RES_OK instead.

Tom

[Dan Pop]

In <3f************ ***********@new s.xs4all.nl> Mike Machuidel <ma*******@yaho o.com> writes:

I'm a game developer programming mostly in C and ASM for about 7 years.

Today at work a colleague (a C++ programmer) yelled at me I'm a bad C
programmer because I use "return(0); " instead of "return 0;".
He explained that "return" is not a function but a stament, like I
didn't know already. The other colleagues also argreed with him :(.

Can someone please explain what's so wrong about using "return" with
parantheses? I've used them like that from the beginning.

There is nothing wrong, if you also write such things:

i = (j) + (k);
for (i = (0); i < (sizeof(foo)); i++) ...
printf("%d\n", (i));

If you don't, then what's the point in surrounding the return
expression by a pair of completely useless parentheses? The language
accepts them for the sole reason that every expression can be
surrounded by an arbitrary number of matching pairs of parentheses
(up to 32 in C89 or 63 in C99). So, why limit yourself at a single
pair, when return((((((((( 0))))))))); is so much cooler?

The other reason against parentheses in return statements is related to
what happens if you make a typo. In C89, retunr(0); is a valid function
call that doesn't require any diagnostic, while retunr 0; is a syntax
error requiring a diagnostic. Why prevent the compiler from detecting
and reporting your typos?

In short, in a C program, *unneeded* parentheses should be used only when
they improve the code readability (usually complex expressions). I don't
find return(0) and more readable than return 0 and the previous paragraph
explains why the latter is to be preferred.

During the early days of C, the syntax of the return statement required
the parentheses. Later, it was realised that they don't serve any *good*
purpose and, by the time K&R1 was printed, they were already removed from
the language syntax (but not from the code examples included in the book).
This explains why some people who learned C more than 15 years ago may
still use them.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de

[Darrell Grainger]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Mike Machuidel wrote:

Hi,

I'm a game developer programming mostly in C and ASM for about 7 years.

Today at work a colleague (a C++ programmer) yelled at me I'm a bad C
programmer because I use "return(0); " instead of "return 0;".
He explained that "return" is not a function but a stament, like I
didn't know already. The other colleagues also argreed with him :(.

Can someone please explain what's so wrong about using "return" with
parantheses? I've used them like that from the beginning.
I would never say it is 'wrong' to use:

return(0);

There could be the off chance a utility would see this as a function and
get confused (or maybe a REALLY junior programmer).

One thought could be that junior programmers might assume it is a function
call. To make it clear to everyone, don't use the parentheses so people
know it is not a function call. The same would hold true for the sizeof
operator.

What it really boils down to is people being nitpicky. I'm sure if I
wrote:

return((((((0)) ))));

that would bother a lot of people. There is nothing really wrong with it.
It just bothers people because there is no need for the parentheses.
Thank you,
Mike Machuidel

--
Send e-mail to: darrell at cs dot toronto dot edu
Don't send e-mail to vi************@ whitehouse.gov

[Fao, Sean]

"Andreas Kahari" <ak*******@free shell.org> wrote in message
news:sl******** **************@ vinland.freeshe ll.org...

It's not wrong, it's just not needed.

See the FAQ at

http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q20.19.html

As the FAQ points out, "parenthese s are optional with the sizeof operator,
too, as long as its operand is a variable or a unary expression".

When I first started programming in C, I was asked to write a macro, which
would calculate the number of elements in an array, but couldn't use any
functions. I knew I could do it like this:

#define NUM_ELTS(x) (sizeof(x) / sizeof(x[0]))

However, at the time, the parentheses that I was taught to use made me think
that sizeof was a function.

In my opinion, any C programmer who doesn't know that parentheses are
optional in these cases, and others, has no business working on any real
projects other then the ones out of a workbook. Maybe your use of
parentheses suggested to you coworkers a lack of understanding. As you
pointed out, it's not wrong; but, they aren't necessary. What would you
think if a coworker started writing code like this:

int main(void)
{
int a = (32);
printf("%d\n", (a));
return (0);
}

Sean

[Serve Lau]

"Mike Machuidel" <ma*******@yaho o.com> wrote in message
news:3f******** *************** @news.xs4all.nl ...

I'm a game developer programming mostly in C and ASM for about 7 years.

Today at work a colleague (a C++ programmer) yelled at me I'm a bad C
programmer because I use "return(0); " instead of "return 0;".

I'm dying to know, how old is that programmer?

[James Antill]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:13:57 -0400, Fao, Sean wrote:

In my opinion, any C programmer who doesn't know that parentheses are
optional in these cases, and others, has no business working on any real
projects other then the ones out of a workbook. Maybe your use of
parentheses suggested to you coworkers a lack of understanding. As you
pointed out, it's not wrong; but, they aren't necessary. What would you
think if a coworker started writing code like this:

int main(void)
{
int a = (32);
printf("%d\n", (a));
return (0);
}

Probably the same as if a found a coworker who had written...

if (a && b || c && d != -1)

....parentheses are mainly about style, and yes examples can be provided at
either extreme that are terrible. Personally I find that I think of...

if (x)
while (x)
switch (x)
return (x)
exit (x)

....all as "similar" so I make them look the same. I also, personally, find
that I think of...

strlen(x)
sizeof(x)
malloc(x)

....as "similar", so I make them look the same. That doesn't mean I don't
understand that sizeof() isn't a real function (even though it's even
closer to acting like one in C99), I just prefer to see it that way.

As was said, if you have coding stds. for what you are working on then
almost any style applied consistently is better than a mixture of
anything. So if the rest of the code base used non-parentheses return
statements then you should change.

As for typing "return (0);" being typoed "reutrn (0);" and not being
caught, then..

1. Every viewer/editor[1] I use for C has syntax highlighting that show the
return as obviously wrong.
2. I've always used a compiler that warns when you use a non-prototyped
function.

[1] Well, ok, every one apart from my newsclient.

--
James Antill -- ja***@and.org
Need an efficient and powerful string library for C?
http://www.and.org/vstr/