Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Recursion, Yo
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 20:47:48 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <uv9b8l$1rbtt$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uut24f$2icpb$1@dont-email.me> <uutqd2$bhl0$1@i2pn2.org>
 <uv2u2a$41j5$1@dont-email.me> <87edbestmg.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <uv4r9e$mdd3$1@dont-email.me> <uv5e3l$q885$1@dont-email.me>
 <uv5gfd$qum1$1@dont-email.me> <uv5lgl$s6uj$1@dont-email.me>
 <uv61f6$v1jm$1@dont-email.me> <uv68ok$11080$1@dont-email.me>
 <uv7a8n$18qf8$3@dont-email.me> <uv867l$1j8l6$1@dont-email.me>
 <_zSRN.161297$m4d.144795@fx43.iad> <20240411075825.30@kylheku.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 20:47:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="90e30c6ef7bcafc98b4a35b314c59c84";
	logging-data="1945533"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1915ivNILIY7jHTf8Xc9/ukwl8tv1cyxpE="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1UrdNdImEPD+RPr031yLD20QhYc=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <20240411075825.30@kylheku.com>
Bytes: 3746

On 11/04/2024 17:04, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2024-04-11, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>> On 11/04/2024 02:18, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I do that sometimes, yes.  I could argue that I think it is better to be
>>> explicit than implicit, but it's just my fingers on automatic.
>>
>> I would use the same argument.   Make it explicit.
> 
> (void) is a dongle intoduced in ANSI C so that () could continue
> to mean "unknown number of parameters". It didn't exist in C++
> until ANSI C invented it.

I like history as much as the next person - probably more so, and thus I 
do appreciate you explaining where this comes from.  But I don't base my 
programming choices or style on history.  From the point of view of 
current programming, it's irrelevant when "(void)" was introduced to C 
and C++, it's only relevant what it means /now/ to the compiler, and 
what it means to someone reading the code.

I write "(void)" in C code, or in C++ code that might be seen by a C 
compiler (such as in a header file that could be used with C or C++), or 
if it might be read by someone who is more familiar with C than C++.  If 
the code is "pure C++", such as this example, I normally don't bother 
with "(void)".  But I don't object to it either.

> 
> () is a perfectly explicit empty list. (void) does not look empty;
> it looks like it's declaring one parameter of type void.

"void" has always been a bit weird as a "type" or as a placeholder for 
an empty type.

> 
> An actual implicit empty parameter list might look like this:
> 
>    function foo
>    {
>    }
> 
> Once you have empty parentheses, that is explicit.
> 

"(void)" stands out more.

> Countless programming languages have only (); no such thing as (void) or
> similar ugly hack, due to not having a quirky history that would have
> caused such a thing to be required.
> 

It has never struck me as "ugly", but it is arguably quirky.