> >Oh, just to add more fuel to the fire, I also have a problem with the
> >use of (void) in front of every function call that discards it's return
> >value.  Does anyone have a good arguemnt for keeping this?  It really
> >bloats code for no reason IMO.
> 
> I find (void) to be a useful stylistic convention.  What
> 
> (void) syscall(...);
> 
> says to me is "yes, I know that this syscall can return an error but I
> wish to plow on regardless."  It indicates that the author intended to
> discard the return value, as opposed to simply being sloppy and
> forgetting to check the value returned by the syscall.
> 
> Note that it only 'bloats' the source; object code is unaffected.

It's not just a stylistic convention.  It's actually useful.  Think
'lint'.


cgd