Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: "Catch-23: The New C Standard,Sets the World on Fire" by Terence Kelly with Special Guest Borer Yekai Pan
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 12:50:13 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <874jpmfbbe.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <u0fn0g$34scf$1@dont-email.me> <87zg7n89zw.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <u0ig61$64g$1@reader2.panix.com> <874jpv84uv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <u0jt3l$cmu$1@reader2.panix.com> <u0k3au$3uelq$1@dont-email.me> <u0lm3j$8iu$1@reader2.panix.com> <20230407042121.909@kylheku.com> <86r0st3zj0.fsf@linuxsc.com> <u0uk66$1or41$1@dont-email.me> <871qkshmhv.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <u10dvr$23np8$1@dont-email.me> <u11404$26gpq$1@dont-email.me> <u116gd$273m1$1@dont-email.me> <u116uf$275ph$1@dont-email.me> <u119q9$27go7$3@dont-email.me> <u11aqa$27na5$1@dont-email.me> <u11cuh$281i6$1@dont-email.me> <u11dt3$28648$1@dont-email.me> <u1395d$2ivmc$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6b1c659db000f6ddffd5df2e4cc173ab"; logging-data="2849023"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18/m6P4u3WdwgNZZY+0Bxf4"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:E83YDRlCr+LF/xUd+GysWfMjCNc= sha1:ElaplzvteOSrvQnPdCdxT8NyxCw=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:169984

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]
> The only real use I have seen for non-prototype function declarations
> is a "general" function pointer in arrays containing mixed function
> pointer types.  Such use is no longer allowed in C23.  Is that what
> you are concerned about?  Normally a better choice of general function
> pointer is "void foo(void)", rather than "int foo()".  (In C23, the
> later would now mean "int foo(void)".)

I haven't often had a need for a generic function pointer type (as void*
is a generic object pointer type), but I suggest that using a return
type that's not used elsewhere might be safer.  If you use `void(void)`
as a generic function type, there's a risk that a call without a cast
will quietly compile.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for XCOM Labs
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */