Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: gcc and 'include'
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2026 10:09:31 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <86wlxv2chg.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <10q4ceb$38i2d$1@dont-email.me> <87ikaiw5g0.fsf@example.invalid> <10q5nnr$3l3lc$1@dont-email.me> <87pl4pnotc.fsf@example.invalid>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2026 17:09:32 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="842c0705c388246dee2d3602366a27fb"; logging-data="1023732"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/AOpqjkYIqIPMQ082c3rKwbvUt5SK+Wtk="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wsGduzIrzAll9YwNCDLMN6McBfc= sha1:ASfHqkilSc3P4xPiHsWqYXH0tx8=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:397941

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.