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

Popular posts from this blog

SPSS keyboard combination alters encoding -

Socket.connect doesn't throw exception in Android -

iphone - How do I keep MDScrollView from truncating my row headers and making my cells look bad? -