3 ms·
Well that's unfortunate. I suspect the fault lies with C, the early versions of which did not have the 'void' keyword, and 'int' was assumed as the default retu
by Koshkin 5y ago
Well that's unfortunate. I suspect the fault lies with C, the early versions of which did not have the 'void' keyword, and 'int' was assumed as the default return type - which also meant that when such "function" did not include a 'return' statement it "returned" whatever garbage was left in the register. Instead of adding the keyword 'void' (to be abused later as the empty arg list) they could have added 'proc' instead, but that would have complicated the parsing, and so they went with the 'void' pseudo-type as an indication of the fact that the function is not really a function but a procedure.