syntactic sugar - C/C++: Is there a specific reason why "void" was not simply defined as "typedef struct{} void" (i.e. an empty struct) with appropriate casting rules? -
as aside: such standard typedef have reduce number of reserved words in c/c++, , relegated void simple type declaration, e.g. in <stddef.h>. (c.f. srb in ab33/mar 1972 - pdf=7kb)
that's pretty speculative. 1 reason because void
not empty value; it's absence of value. instance, function signature of int f(void)
takes 0 arguments, not one.
Comments
Post a Comment