From: cjsonnack@mmm.com (Programmer Dude)
Subject: Re: Compiler error: 'Expect procedure name in procedure call'
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 14:51:34 -0600
Date: 2002-11-05T14:51:34-06:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3DC82F56.A723BACA@mmm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3DC6DCC4.60301@worldnet.att.net
Jim Rogers wrote:
> You are actually calling C functions. It is still a bad idea to
> ignore a return value. The return value is your only indication of an
> error from a C function. Ignoring errors is a BAD idea.
But what about C functions in the str* family? They often just return
their first argument (that is, not an error code).
--
|_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|_______________________|
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-11-05 20:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-11-04 15:05 Compiler error: 'Expect procedure name in procedure call' Jon
2002-11-04 15:35 ` Stephen Leake
2002-11-04 19:57 ` Jon
2002-11-04 20:35 ` Björn Lundin
2002-11-04 20:53 ` Björn Lundin
2002-11-04 20:48 ` Jim Rogers
2002-11-04 21:08 ` Stephen Leake
2002-11-05 22:15 ` Frank J. Lhota
2002-11-05 20:51 ` Programmer Dude [this message]
2002-11-06 15:06 ` Ted Dennison
2002-11-04 21:40 ` Vinzent Hoefler
2002-11-05 9:29 ` Jon
2002-11-05 9:55 ` Dale Stanbrough
2002-11-06 23:29 ` Randy Brukardt
2002-11-05 14:22 ` Ted Dennison
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox