return 0; return(0); Which one, /g/? Is return a function?

>>52497467
Don't use brackets.
If its clear without them and they aren't necessary, then why use them?

File: bruh goofy.jpg (11KB, 221x319px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 221x319px

>>52497467
>return

>>52497467
The first. Return isn't a function.

>>52498245
If it isn't a function why does it accept function syntax?

>>52498332
It doesn't accept function syntax.
x and (x) are the same things. You can just add parenthesis around x. It's like 1 + x and 1 + (x). Do you say that 1 + accept function syntax?

File: 1450343047292.jpg (71KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 640x480px

>>52497851
>using exit

File: me nd my goth gf.png (316KB, 522x960px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 522x960px

>>52497467
Well I mean it should really be more like:
0

>>52497467
Return is a statement.

>>52498332
Parens aren't used exclusively for function calls.

>>52497851

char *string[16] = "";
char *p = string;
bool notexited = true;
do {
 *p += 32;
 *p = 64;
} while (notexited == true)

That'll do it

>>52498612
>== true

>>52498708
> greater than or equal to and the same type as true
> c

This saddens the kernighan
This depresses the ritchie

>>52498765
>being unable to parse maymay arrows

>>52498796
> being unable to use non-printing spaces

rustled, newfag?

>>52498802
>space
>non-printing
wat

Anyway, why are you checking if a boolean is true?

>>52497467
I always neglect to return 0, integers are zero upon declaration.
If the function does not return anything except zero, why return at all?

>>52497467
First one returns integer 0.
Second one evaluates the expression in parentheses and returns a Boolean value 1 if it evaluates to a nonzero value.
If it evaluates to zero, it just returns zero.

>>52497467
Cute pic