Re: [boost] Re: Fun, only handled by vc6/7!

From: Terje Slettebø (tslettebo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-13 02:35:59

>From: "Terje Slettebø" <tslettebo_at_[hidden]>

> >From: "Gennaro Prota" <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]>
>
> > In some old newsgroup post, searched through Google a while ago, I
> > also read that the committee rejected a proposal to allow the
> > generalized form f(T) with T=void, but I've never read the proposal
> > itself (I didn't find it at that time). Maybe Dave can do something to
> > raise the dead though ;-)
>
> Why would we want that? What is this useful for?

FWIW, the f(void) notation was introduced in  C++ for compatibility with C
(D&E, p. 41):

"C with Classes introduced the notation f(void) for a function f that takes
no arguments as a contrast to f() that in C declares a function that can
take any number of arguments of any type without any type check. My users
soon convinced me, however, that the f(void) notation wasn't elegant, and
that having functions declared f() accept arguments wasn't intuitive.
Consequently, the result of the experiment was to have f() mean a function f
that takes no arguments, as any novice would expect. It took support from
both Doug McIlroy and Dennis Ritchie foe me to build up the courage to make
this break from C. Only after they used the word "abomination" about f(void)
did I dare give f() the obvious meaning. However, to this day, C's type
rules are much more lax than C++'s, and ANSI C adopted "the abominable
f(void)" from C with Classes."

Further, he says: "Unfortunately, ANSI C adopted f(void) so I had to
introduce f(void) into C++ for ANSI C compatibility."
(http://technetcast.ddj.com/tnc_program.html?program_id=9).

After having broken C programs to introduce f() as a way of unambiguously
specifying no parameters, in C++, why would we want to go back to the C way
of doing things, with f(void)?

Regards,

Terje