Stephan Witt wrote:
-bool Messages::available() const
+bool Messages::available(string const c)
{
+ (void)c;
return false;
}
Why this (void)c; construct? Pavel
On 09/24/2012 01:07 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Stephan Witt wrote:
-bool Messages::available() const
+bool Messages::available(string const c)
{
+ (void)c;
return false;
}
Why this (void)c; construct?
Crushes an unused variable warning.
rh
Am Montag, 24. September 2012 um 14:10:33, schrieb Richard Heck rgh...@lyx.org
On 09/24/2012 01:07 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Stephan Witt wrote:
-bool Messages::available() const
+bool Messages::available(string const c)
{
+ (void)c;
return false;
}
Why this (void)c;
On 09/24/2012 02:44 PM, Kornel Benko wrote:
Am Montag, 24. September 2012 um 14:10:33, schrieb Richard Heck
rgh...@lyx.org
On 09/24/2012 01:07 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Stephan Witt wrote:
-bool Messages::available() const
+bool Messages::available(string const c)
{
+ (void)c;
Kornel Benko wrote:
Why not
bool Messages::available(string const ) { ... }
exactly ;) p
Am 24.09.2012 um 21:49 schrieb Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org:
Kornel Benko wrote:
Why not
bool Messages::available(string const ) { ... }
exactly ;) p
I've copied this construct from src/support/Package.cpp
Stephan
Stephan Witt wrote:
I've copied this construct from src/support/Package.cpp
I see, but there it is forced by the ifdef structure. I also wonder
why the (void) btw... Pavel
Am 24.09.2012 um 23:34 schrieb Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org:
Stephan Witt wrote:
I've copied this construct from src/support/Package.cpp
I see, but there it is forced by the ifdef structure. I also wonder
why the (void) btw... Pavel
To avoid other warnings.
The best pattern IMHO is:
bool
Stephan Witt wrote:
> -bool Messages::available() const
> +bool Messages::available(string const & c)
> {
> + (void)c;
> return false;
> }
Why this (void)c; construct? Pavel
On 09/24/2012 01:07 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Stephan Witt wrote:
-bool Messages::available() const
+bool Messages::available(string const & c)
{
+ (void)c;
return false;
}
Why this (void)c; construct?
Crushes an "unused variable" warning.
rh
Am Montag, 24. September 2012 um 14:10:33, schrieb Richard Heck
> On 09/24/2012 01:07 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > Stephan Witt wrote:
> >> -bool Messages::available() const
> >> +bool Messages::available(string const & c)
> >> {
> >> + (void)c;
> >>return false;
> >> }
> >
On 09/24/2012 02:44 PM, Kornel Benko wrote:
Am Montag, 24. September 2012 um 14:10:33, schrieb Richard Heck
> On 09/24/2012 01:07 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > Stephan Witt wrote:
> >> -bool Messages::available() const
> >> +bool Messages::available(string const & c)
> >> {
Kornel Benko wrote:
> Why not
> bool Messages::available(string const & ) { ... }
exactly ;) p
Am 24.09.2012 um 21:49 schrieb Pavel Sanda :
> Kornel Benko wrote:
>> Why not
>> bool Messages::available(string const & ) { ... }
>
> exactly ;) p
I've copied this construct from src/support/Package.cpp
Stephan
Stephan Witt wrote:
> I've copied this construct from src/support/Package.cpp
I see, but there it is forced by the ifdef structure. I also wonder
why the (void) btw... Pavel
Am 24.09.2012 um 23:34 schrieb Pavel Sanda :
> Stephan Witt wrote:
>> I've copied this construct from src/support/Package.cpp
>
> I see, but there it is forced by the ifdef structure. I also wonder
> why the (void) btw... Pavel
To avoid other warnings.
The best pattern IMHO is:
16 matches
Mail list logo