Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Any way to defer template function overloading?
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 17:53:43 +1200
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <9tst77FfaaU3@mid.individual.net>
References: <jl8d4h$hbf$1@speranza.aioe.org> <4f788f56$0$4347$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> <jlbekq$693$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net v/KAp7N5mVbI0S8L3wnGiw/zMCiYct9v54LuelFPWKpzcJqwyZ
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qv218LwOKJBTn8bWCZnqE6R239E=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; SunOS i86pc; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111228 Thunderbird/7.0.1
In-Reply-To: <jlbekq$693$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:15126

On 04/ 2/12 05:48 PM, Qi wrote:
> On 2012-4-2 1:24, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>> Qi<no@no.no>   wrote:
>>> int main(int argc, char * argv[])
>>> {
>>>          (void)argc;
>>>          (void)argv;
>>
>>     This seemed like nonsensical code because it does nothing. Then I realized
>> that it's an ugly hack to silence the compiler warning about unused
>> variables. That's not how you do it.
>
> Ugly? Maybe.
> But it makes a lot of sense to me.
>
> There is time that some parameters are not used. Such as implementing
> an interface, and the interface function just has extra parameters for
> flexibility.
>
> Though I can write "int main(int, char **)", I won't do it because
> I expect others may read my code and feel difficult to understand
> the function without the parameter name.

Then why don't you just write "int main()"?

> For example,
> int findSomeThing(int, int); // what's that? Don't know
> int findSomeThing(int beginIndex, int endIndex); // oh, find between
> // beginIndex, endIndex, but the function doesn't use them.
>
> Of course we can put the parameter name to declaration and omit
> in the definition, but then the reader needs to dig into the header
> only for parameters when he is reading the source code.

If the parameter isn't used (and named), why would the reader look for it?

> int main(int /*argc*/, char** /*argv*/) ?
> To me, it's more ugly and easier to misread than (void)argc.
> **? */? How may * and / there in one line?
>
> And I think "(void)argc" is well known for C++ developers, maybe
> I'm wrong?

Maybe, most people I know simply omit the name.

-- 
Ian Collins