Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="David Brown, post: 5152232"] I disagree (at least a bit) here - I don't see any reason to have unnamed parameters in C. If the parameter is completely useless, then it should be removed entirely - if not, then the name is part of the documentation for the function's interface. Just because it is not used in this particular version of the implementation of the function, does not mean it should not be named. And the solution to the original problem is nothing more dramatic than "(void) x;", which is neither hard to write nor hard to understand. In C++, I can think of a situation where unnamed parameters make sense - you might want a function that requires you to have an object of a particular class but does not care about the contents. This can be used to give compile-time checking of constraints. For example, if your system has a global interrupt lock, then you might use a class "InterruptDisabler" whose constructor preserves the old interrupt state and disables interrupts, and whose destructor restores the state. A function that expects interrupts to be disabled could take an unnamed parameter of type "const InterruptDisabler&". [/QUOTE]