Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Recursion, Yo Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 00:18:31 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <87edbestmg.fsf@bsb.me.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 02:18:31 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d2a2395bdbcba38bc0f5ee97a1706bee"; logging-data="1337832"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/erY9PWkr2oqOTZhE7b0KR" User-Agent: Pan/0.155 (Kherson; fc5a80b8) Cancel-Lock: sha1:qXoJFuy2Dgz8HxVhoUIbZtAS3mI= Bytes: 1626 On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 16:46:43 +0200, David Brown wrote: > Just for your entertainment, with C++ lambdas this is now legal code: > > void foo(void) { > [](){}(); > } C programmer still has habit of writing “(void)” when C++ allows “()” instead. Does the latest C spec now also take “()” to mean “no args” (synonymous with “(void)”) instead of “unspecified args”?