Why to use return type for string function as char*?

[Shubhangi24]

If we are using strcpy() for copying the string. As we are passing pointers to it It will copy the string & no need to return the string .This function will finely work with return type as void then why Ritchie has used it as char* strcpy()?

[weaknessforcats]

Returning a value means you can use the strcpy on the right side of an assignment operator.

Maybe you like this:

char* arr[5;
      arr[0] = strcpy(destination, str);
 
 

better than this:

      strcpy(destination, str);
      arr[0] = destination;
 

The second example is probably a tad slower because of the two statements.

[Shubhangi24]

thank you friend,
I think you are not getting my question.As we are using pointers the change will be made into the actual parameter then why to return the value?

[weaknessforcats]

A fuction becomes an instance of it's return value. So a function that returns an int can be used as an int. All the compiler has to do is call the function to get the value instead f you hard-coding the value.

Therefore, a function that returns a value can be used on the right side of an assignment operator. The function can be an RVAL.

Library developers, the ones who wrote strcpy, made sure that I you want to use strcpy as a RVAL you can. In fact, if you check the generated code I suspect using strcpy as an RVAL has fewer instructions generated as opposed to calling it and then assignming the value.

This is what I attempted to explain in my reply.

[Shubhangi24]

Thank you weaknessforcats......