> You're setting yourself up for inconsistency if you don't always use a > prototypical definition. In the above example, foo() must be > declared/defined using a prototype (or you get warnings from gcc when you > compile with -Wmissing-prototypes (which is recommended for developers)). > But you're saying bar() should *not* have a prototype. > > > -1 on dropping the "void" from the definition. I disagree it is bad form, > and it sets us up for inconsistencies. We discussed this briefly today in our group chat, and I'm +0 or Greg's recommendation (that's +0 on keeping (void) in definitions). --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.pythonlabs.com/~guido/)
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