On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 08:17:05AM +0100, Thorsten Wißmann wrote: > - I'm too lazy to continue writing void everywhere. > - It looks totally ugly... > - I don't see how ignoring that and writing ambigous fkt() causes any > issues regarding security or stability. One will notice it if > parameters to a function are ignored. But one might not immediately notice missing parameters to a function, i.e. the caller forgot an argument. > > // core functions > > -int quit() { > > +int quit(int argc, char* argv[]) { > > g_aboutToQuit = true; > > return 0; > > } > > I really prefer the previous version, because in the other case there > are parameters of that function which aren't used. Same for reload, > true, false, etc. But a reader immediately knows that the function takes arguments which are at the moment unused. I find that clearer. > Is there any advantage of writing (void), except that it is more > "conform"? See above. It's not a big advantage, but it's clearer and can prevent problems in the future. And to me the void doesn't look too bad, but that's a matter of opinion of course. Regards Simon -- + privacy is necessary + using gnupg http://gnupg.org + public key id: 0x92FEFDB7E44C32F9
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature