Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: gcc and 'include'
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2026 10:51:27 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <87pl4pnotc.fsf@example.invalid>
References: <10q4ceb$38i2d$1@dont-email.me> <87ikaiw5g0.fsf@example.invalid> <10q5nnr$3l3lc$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2026 17:51:28 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a55eadc412f059e575f2c992813ebc05"; logging-data="4149869"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+miiweLhLQvXdUf5djZdkB"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9dHTyQ/fs+kIB1BmjLWoXe8a9t8= sha1:0VpTlTfGg6abKAFsIWlam69Na+4=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:397233

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.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */