Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!crdgw1!camelback!volpe
From: volpe@camelback.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: 'void' arguments (Yet Another Feature Proposal)
Message-ID: <16571@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Date: 8 Feb 91 17:17:20 GMT
References: <943@tuura.UUCP> <15955@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <wolfram.666027738@ikki>
Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com
Reply-To: volpe@camelback.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe)
Distribution: comp
Lines: 30

In article <wolfram.666027738@ikki>,
wolfram@ikki.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Wolfram Roesler) writes:

(This reference here was mine, although Wolfram omitted that fact)

|>>How about making it a variable argument list function and calling
|>>it with 
|>>           SetThisMode(<xyz>);
|>>or
|>>           SetThisMode(<abc>,i,j,k);
|>>???
|>
|>It's not even necessary to write SetThisMode() to work with a
|>variable arg list. If it doesnt bother about the last args in case
|>the first arg is <xyz>, you could simply call it with only one arg.
|>This will of cource annoy Lint and anybody reading your program,

Well, I thought we were talking about portable methods written in
*REAL* C. Not only will it annoy lint and anyone reading your
program (as if that weren't enough), it's illegal from an ANSI
point of view and the compiler MUST issue a diagnostic (assuming you
have some sort of prototype in scope) and will most likely not generate
code.             
|>but it will work.

Not if it aborts compilation, it won't.
==================
Chris Volpe
G.E. Corporate R&D
volpecr@crd.ge.com