From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,35629eebe01bcdaf
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org>
Subject: Re: About to give up...
Date: 1998/08/08
Message-ID: <m3k94kl30y.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 379102242
Sender: matt@mheaney.ni.net
References: <6qbt86$dh$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6qcblu$f60$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <6qeb1u$728$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <dewar.902545843@merv>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 00:35:23 PDT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-08-08T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> In fact the ease of accidentally ignoring returned values is one of the
> great weaknesses in C. C almost invites programs to avoid taking the 
> effort to deal with error indications.
> 
> If you *do* want to completely ignore returned result, I find a useful
> notation to be
> 
> 	Discard (func (params));
> 
> where Discard is an inlined null procedure that ignores its parameter.

One thing you can do in C is to explicitly cast away the return value

  (void) func (params);

This at least tells your reader that you didn't accidently ignore the
return value.