Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: 'void' arguments (Yet Another Feature Proposal)
Message-ID: <14941@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 23 Jan 91 22:52:14 GMT
References: <943@tuura.UUCP> <15955@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 14

In article <15955@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> volpe@camelback.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe) writes:
>How about making it a variable argument list function and calling
>it with 
>           SetThisMode(<xyz>);
>or
>           SetThisMode(<abc>,i,j,k);

That is certainly a cleaner approach, and is supported by the current C
standard.  The one possible drawback is that in some implementations use
of a variable-argument function can result in less efficient function
linkage.  (Also, the definition of SetThisMode() becomes more tedious.)
I don't think those drawbacks are too severe, though.  Certainly there
is very little to be gained by introducing another keyword just to
facilitate slightly more efficient linkage in such an uncommon situation.