Hello. On 27/11/15 03:14, Jean-Philippe André wrote: > Hey Tom, > > On 27 November 2015 at 01:44, Stefan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello. >> >> On 26/11/15 17:39, Tom Hacohen wrote: >>> As you said in the commit message, and just to correct terminology: >>> >>> You are not "forcing empty function parameters", it's just how the >>> syntax works. >>> >>> int foo(); // Unspecified parameters >>> int foo(void); // No parameters >>> >>> So probably it should be better described as "correct declaration of >>> function with no parameters". >>> >>> I'm being a bit pedantic, but it's just that obviously someone (whoever >>> wrote that code) doesn't know the difference, so it's important to make >>> it crystal clear for current and future contributors. >> Point taken. The batch for elm will use the changed subject line. >> >> > Why did you go through the trouble of adding this (void) in the headers but > not in the implementation? Looks like a job half done to me...
Because the difference is really only in the declaration. In the definition C does not make a difference between () and (void), both mean function without parameters. So the actual problem is fixed. Making the changes to definitions as well could be nice for consistency reasons but I did not see it as important. Could be done though. regards Stefan Schmidt > Best regards, > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
