On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 10:02:20AM -0800, Max Okumoto wrote:
> Christos Zoulas wrote:
> >On Feb 1,  4:24am, okumoto@ucsd.edu (Max Okumoto) wrote:
> >-- Subject: Re: usr.bin/make
> >
> >| >In article <hf4qgxc1fp.fsf@multivac.sdsc.edu>,
> >| >Max Okumoto  <okumoto@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> >| >
> >| >>The following two attachments are a script that and the diffs
> >| >>generated by that script.  The script does the following:
> >| >>
> >| >>    * removes spaces between function name and parameters.
> >| >>       funcname (1, 2, 3) => funcname(1, 2, 3)
> >| >
> >| >that is fine.
> >| >
> >| >>    * removes (void) from in front of unsed return
> >| >>      values of functions.
> >| >>      (void)funcname(1, 2) => funcname(1, 2)
> >| >
> >| >that breaks lint. Why do you want to do it?
> >| >
> >| >christos
> 
> Could we please stop with the religion?  You asked why
> the script removed (void).  I gave you the reasons.  It
> is easy to remove the section in my script that removes
> the (void) casting.

Standardizing the whitespace'ing sounds fine so please send that back.

It isn't about "religion" so much as there's specific reasons we still use
lint in places and code should follow the style guidelines.

> 
> I would reather focus on more of the higher level structure.
> Should I resubmit the patch without the (void) removal?
> I have about 10 more patches that can be shared, that are
> more substancial.

Send those as well.

James