"void Method()" vs "void Method(void)"

O

Ollej Reemt

Hello,

I would like to know if there is a difference in c++ between the
following two method-declarations:

void Method();

and

void Method(void);


I know there is a difference in C (the first case means the function may
have parameters, but they are not yet defined?).
But how is the semantik in C++? Is there a difference or are both
declarations equal in _every_ case?

I would be glad to get an answer to this question (and perhaps a
reference where this topic is explained (C++-standard?)).

Regards
ollej
 
S

Sharad Kala

Ollej Reemt said:
Hello,

I would like to know if there is a difference in c++ between the
following two method-declarations:

void Method();

and

void Method(void);

They are same. Former is the preferred type in C++. Reference to the
Standard --

8.3.5/2 - "...If the parameter-declaration-clause is empty, the function
takes no arguments. The parameter list (void) is equivalent to the empty
parameter list."

Sharad
 
T

Thomas Matthews

Ollej said:
Hello,

I would like to know if there is a difference in c++ between the
following two method-declarations:

void Method();

and

void Method(void);


I know there is a difference in C (the first case means the function may
have parameters, but they are not yet defined?).
But how is the semantik in C++? Is there a difference or are both
declarations equal in _every_ case?

I would be glad to get an answer to this question (and perhaps a
reference where this topic is explained (C++-standard?)).

Regards
ollej

In addition to Sharad's reply, I prefer the latter method since
it is explicit and works in both languages.

--
Thomas Matthews

C++ newsgroup welcome message:
http://www.slack.net/~shiva/welcome.txt
C++ Faq: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite
C Faq: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/c-faq/top.html
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ faq:
http://www.comeaucomputing.com/learn/faq/
Other sites:
http://www.josuttis.com -- C++ STL Library book
http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl -- Standard Template Library
 
O

Oliver Robbe

Hello Sharad and Thomas,

thanks for your answers, that was exactly what I wanted to know.

Regards
ollej
 
R

Rolf Magnus

Thomas said:
In addition to Sharad's reply, I prefer the latter method since
it is explicit and works in both languages.

The point about it working in both languages is valid - if you make a header
that is supposed to be used in both languages, but how is it explicit?
IMHO, if you want to say "no parameters", the most explicit way to describe
that is by putting no parameters between the parens, not by putting a fake
parameter of type void there.
 
K

Kristo

Rolf said:
The point about it working in both languages is valid - if you make a
header that is supposed to be used in both languages, but how is it
explicit? IMHO, if you want to say "no parameters", the most explicit
way to describe that is by putting no parameters between the parens,
not by putting a fake parameter of type void there.

I believe 'explicit' in this case refers to what Ollej originally said:
in C, an empty parameter list does not necessarily mean that the
function takes no arguments. In a header file shared between C and C++
code, foo(void) will *explicitly* tell either language that foo takes
no arguments. Writing foo() will only explicitly say that to C++ code.

Kristo
 
V

Victor Bazarov

Kristo said:
I believe 'explicit' in this case refers to what Ollej originally said:
in C, an empty parameter list does not necessarily mean that the
function takes no arguments. In a header file shared between C and C++
code, foo(void) will *explicitly* tell either language that foo takes
no arguments. Writing foo() will only explicitly say that to C++ code.

And what Rolf said is still true: in English having something to designate
nothing is the source of confusion. Haven't you seen (in the Standard, no
less) pages, where the only _content_ is "this page is left intentionally
blank". Isn't it a self-contradictory statement? That's what "explicitly
emtpy argument list" means in C++: no arguments, nothing between the
opening parenthesis and the closing one. I actually strongly agree with
Rolf on this one. To be _explicit_, one should simply have bare parens.

V
 
J

Jack Klein

And what Rolf said is still true: in English having something to designate
nothing is the source of confusion. Haven't you seen (in the Standard, no
less) pages, where the only _content_ is "this page is left intentionally
blank". Isn't it a self-contradictory statement? That's what "explicitly
emtpy argument list" means in C++: no arguments, nothing between the
opening parenthesis and the closing one. I actually strongly agree with
Rolf on this one. To be _explicit_, one should simply have bare parens.

V

Once upon a time, I wrote the users manual for a product. I generated
some of the illustrations from AutoCAD drawings of some of the
mechanical parts. As a joke, I created one drawing of a part cracked
in half to go along with the text warning the user about doing
something that could cause damage.

The powers that be saw it, decided it was funny, and wanted it in the
manual. Then at the very last minute, they changed their mind and
wanted it out.

So when the manual was printed, it had several of those pages that
said "this page intentionally blank", and one page, the one that had
held that particular illustration, that said "this page
unintentionally left blank."

Nobody ever noticed.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Void problem 1
Logic Problem with BigInteger Method 2
void * pointers 5
Void variables 47
const void * in structure 3
To void or not to void 3
test(void *data) vs test(void &data) 91
Replacing a void* in C++ 10

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,733
Messages
2,569,439
Members
44,829
Latest member
PIXThurman

Latest Threads

Top