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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5c8024b730bb1bfb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-11-04 13:09:41 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!skates!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Compiler error: 'Expect procedure name in procedure call' Date: 04 Nov 2002 16:08:11 -0500 Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (skates.gsfc.nasa.gov) Message-ID: References: <445cd6bf.0211040705.3b638858@posting.google.com> <445cd6bf.0211041157.1537dfd5@posting.google.com> <3DC6DCC4.60301@worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.gsfc.nasa.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: skates.gsfc.nasa.gov 1036444752 11063 128.183.235.92 (4 Nov 2002 21:19:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.gsfc.nasa.gov NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Nov 2002 21:19:12 GMT User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:30364 Date: 2002-11-04T21:19:12+00:00 List-Id: Jim Rogers writes: > 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. For most C functions, I agree with this. However, for the specific case of Win32 C functions, many have a return value which is _defined_ to be "TRUE", and many others have no documentation on what the return value might be. This is a side effect of the C compilers letting you ignore return values; the Win32 authors apparently said something like "Well, this return value is pretty meaningless, but people can always ignore it, and we have a coding standard that says 'return a value'" :). So in some cases, if you have documentation and testing to back it up, you _should_ ignore return values. -- -- Stephe