peter wrote:
> thomas wrote:
> > However, as far as I remember, ANSI C states that should be written
> > as '(void)'. Is that a non-issue, and should I not bother fixing =
those ?
> > (Most of the files in Modules/ has one or more instances of those.)
>=20
> Yes, I think that's right. I just looked at them and thought: Oh, no
> parameters - no work ;-)
>=20
> But then even "gcc -pedantic -ansi" doesn't care about this.
> Take that as a +0.
strictly speaking, (void) and () are two different things:
"If the function does not expect any arguments, you write
only the keyword void
void reset(void); no arguments, no return
...
"You can also declare a function and not provide information
about the number or types of its arguments. Do not write
declarations within the parentheses of the function decoration.
double bessel(); no argument information
(from http://www-ccs.ucsd.edu/c/function.html)
but I guess it's up to you if you want to be more pedantic than
-pedantic...
</F>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4