Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.lang.c > #397941

Re: gcc and 'include'

Show all headers | View raw

Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:

> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>> On 26/03/2026 23:12, Keith Thompson wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> (Unless you're using a C23 compiler, I suggest "int F(void)" rather
>>> than "int F()".)
>>
>> Nobody bothers with that any more.
>
> I presume that's meant to be hyperbole.  Plenty of C programmers do
> bother with that.
>
>>                                    Most seem to assume that () already
>> means zero parameters anyway, judging by the incorrect usage I
>> constantly saw in open source code.
>
> I find it better to write correct code than to look for excuses
> to write poor code.  If I define a parameterless function F, I
> absolutely want a diagnostic if I call it with one or more arguments.
> If nothing else, it's an opportunity to set a good example.

The declaration "int F();" is correct code.  Just because you
don't like it doesn't mean it's wrong.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: gcc and 'include' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-25 10:09 -0700
  Re: gcc and 'include' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-04-25 15:58 -0700

csiph-web