> > > All the input functions are declared void, or are supposed to be!
> > > I
> > > made the
> > > change a while back so we actually return void, but if you're
> > > bothered then
> > > do something else, but don't change the basic behaviour of the
> > > server
> > > so it
> > > doesn't work!
> >
> > If they are declared void, why is there a return statement? That
> > makes
> > no sense. Further, it's an error. Should I just move the statement
>
> If it's an error why is there so much code out there that follows the
> pattern? It's an error on metrowerks but the rest of the lunatic
> asylum that
> are compilers don't care.
Maybe because the people who wrote it can't understand what a return
statement is for? If gcc accepts it, that doesn't mean it's legitimate
code.
> > above, and then do a void return?
>
> The return is to exit the function.
I *know* that! That's why I would have modified the code like this:
return foo();
to
foo();
return;
which, in point of fact, is what it always should have been.
> > > How do you expect the server to work with that function commented
> > > out??? No
> > > IP packets (and you've done it other places as well) will EVER be
> > > forwarded
> > > to where it's supposed to go and what's more the mbuf will never
> > > be
> > > freed,
> > > so you'll use memory like it's water. Are you sude you got it
> > > running
> > > before
> > > you committed these changes?
> >
> > OK, uncomment it. I got it *compiling*, as I made non-substantive
> > changes to make it compile. I didn't realize that was an important
> > function call, the problem was a valued return in a void function.
> > If
> > you want, fix it, as I have to go now.
> > -Nathan
>
> OK, now how can you call a change that stops the server doing what
> it's
> supposed to "non substantive"????????? In my book that's a big change
> and
> should NOT have been done without asking about it first. Nathan, you
> could
> have saved a LOT of effort over this had you posted patches (as I
> asked) and
> asked about stuff like this that you didn't like. As I've said before
> there
> are no stupid questions, but people who don't ask them tend to fall
> into the
> "stupid" people box.
NOT that I'm the only person ever to have broken anything. I'm sorry I
didn't ask, but in my view, all the changes *were* non-substantive. I
forgot about that one, because there were a lot of changes, and it was
just bizarre. This really doesn't seem worth all this griping to me,
especially when all of you break the server frequently, and this is
enormously easy to fix, and not at all worth you flaming me.
> Yeah OK, I'll go in and fix the errors I guess. I mean why should
> everyone
> else suffer?
Hrrrm, I don't know? Why should everyone else suffer through any bugs,
or badly written code?
-Nathan
--
Fortune Cookie Says:
Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists.
-- John Kenneth Galbraith