|
ms
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
void parameter argumentIs it just me, or is the removal of support for the word "void" in a
parameter list extremely annoying? Some of us have been programming for years putting "void function_name (void)" - and it really doesn't feel nice having to miss it out. Is there any reason for them removing this? I don't suppose there's a pragma or something to stop the compiler barking about it is there? AFAIK, the syntax
void function_name(void) was introduced in ANSI C (or perhaps earlier) because the old, original K&R C allowed function prototypes with "unspecified" arguments. So, in C you could also say, void function_name() which did _not_ mean "this function does not take any arguments," but rather "I'm not telling you what arguments this function takes, if any." So, the "(void)" syntax was a necessary addition to distinguish between this non-disclosure and a declaration that a function took no arguments. It was a backward compatibility thing. I suppose that it was left out in C# because it's superfluous. In a language that requires you to declare all arguments, there's no need to distinguish between the two cases with a keyword "void". Dan wrote:
> Is it just me, or is the removal of support for the word "void" in a But you have to type less, so what's the big deal? ;). Just get used to > parameter list extremely annoying? Some of us have been programming for > years putting "void function_name (void)" - and it really doesn't feel nice > having to miss it out. Is there any reason for them removing this? I don't > suppose there's a pragma or something to stop the compiler barking about it > is there? () means (nothing) or (void) or (nada) and you're done :) FB -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get LLBLGen Pro, productive O/R mapping for .NET: http://www.llblgen.com My .NET blog: http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma Microsoft MVP (C#) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Is it just me, or is the removal of support for the word "void" in a Unfortunately, at work it's part of our coding standard that you have to put> > parameter list extremely annoying? Some of us have been programming for > > years putting "void function_name (void)" - and it really doesn't feel nice > > having to miss it out. Is there any reason for them removing this? I don't > > suppose there's a pragma or something to stop the compiler barking about it > > is there? > > But you have to type less, so what's the big deal? ;). Just get used to > () means (nothing) or (void) or (nada) and you're done :) "void" in a function without parameters (we use C at work). So I can't get used to not using it. But now you're using C#. You have to accept that C# is not C and adapt to
new paradigms. void for empty argument lists always has been rubbish because void foo() and void foo(void) are one and the same. Show quote "Dan" <dan@nospam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:e$XblL0PFHA.2748@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > > > Is it just me, or is the removal of support for the word "void" in a > > > parameter list extremely annoying? Some of us have been programming for > > > years putting "void function_name (void)" - and it really doesn't feel > nice > > > having to miss it out. Is there any reason for them removing this? I > don't > > > suppose there's a pragma or something to stop the compiler barking about > it > > > is there? > > > > But you have to type less, so what's the big deal? ;). Just get used to > > () means (nothing) or (void) or (nada) and you're done :) > > > Unfortunately, at work it's part of our coding standard that you have to put > "void" in a function without parameters (we use C at work). So I can't get > used to not using it. > > I'm only using C# at home - so I can't get un-used to using void. I don't
see why your example makes it rubbish. Never mind though - I was hoping someone you reply saying - "yeah, just use this pragma, and the compiler won't bark". Show quote > But now you're using C#. You have to accept that C# is not C and adapt to > new paradigms. void for empty argument lists always has been rubbish because > void foo() and void foo(void) are one and the same. > > "Dan" <dan@nospam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > news:e$XblL0PFHA.2748@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > > > > Is it just me, or is the removal of support for the word "void" in a > > > > parameter list extremely annoying? Some of us have been programming > for > > > > years putting "void function_name (void)" - and it really doesn't feel > > nice > > > > having to miss it out. Is there any reason for them removing this? I > > don't > > > > suppose there's a pragma or something to stop the compiler barking > about > > it > > > > is there? > > > > > > But you have to type less, so what's the big deal? ;). Just get used to > > > () means (nothing) or (void) or (nada) and you're done :) > > > > > > Unfortunately, at work it's part of our coding standard that you have to > put > > "void" in a function without parameters (we use C at work). So I can't > get > > used to not using it. > > > > > > When using C# instead of C you have to get used to a lot of things.
for example: byte a=1 byte b=2; byte c = a+b; // error cannot convert int to byte float f = 1.0; // cannot convert double to float Show quote "Dan" <dan@nospam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:d3ggqb$6nf$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk... > I'm only using C# at home - so I can't get un-used to using void. I don't > see why your example makes it rubbish. > > Never mind though - I was hoping someone you reply saying - "yeah, just use > this pragma, and the compiler won't bark". > > > > > > > > But now you're using C#. You have to accept that C# is not C and adapt to > > new paradigms. void for empty argument lists always has been rubbish > because > > void foo() and void foo(void) are one and the same. > > > > "Dan" <dan@nospam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > > news:e$XblL0PFHA.2748@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > > > > > Is it just me, or is the removal of support for the word "void" in a > > > > > parameter list extremely annoying? Some of us have been programming > > for > > > > > years putting "void function_name (void)" - and it really doesn't > feel > > > nice > > > > > having to miss it out. Is there any reason for them removing this? > I > > > don't > > > > > suppose there's a pragma or something to stop the compiler barking > > about > > > it > > > > > is there? > > > > > > > > But you have to type less, so what's the big deal? ;). Just get used > to > > > > () means (nothing) or (void) or (nada) and you're done :) > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, at work it's part of our coding standard that you have to > > put > > > "void" in a function without parameters (we use C at work). So I can't > > get > > > used to not using it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > byte a=1 I didn't know that one. That's a bit crap really - where's the int come> byte b=2; > byte c = a+b; // error cannot convert int to byte from? > float f = 1.0; // cannot convert double to float I don't mind that one - I always put 1.0f in my code."Dan" <dan@nospam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag Every signed integral calculation is automatically propagated to an int innews:d3gkq8$bnr$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk... > > byte a=1 > > byte b=2; > > byte c = a+b; // error cannot convert int to byte > > I didn't know that one. That's a bit crap really - where's the int come > from? C# (except expressions with type long), don't ask me why as I've never understood this one. In C it was a bit different, the result of the expression was always the biggest type of the operands so byte+short yields to short. But if you assigned it back to an byte there was no error since all types were automatically converted without warning so it could happen that you lose a value. > > float f = 1.0; // cannot convert double to float Yes but the problem is that every method or constant of the math class> > I don't mind that one - I always put 1.0f in my code. returns double so you always have to cast almost every line of code especially when using APIs like direct3d which only operates with float.
Show quote
> > > byte a=1 I see what you mean - that could be a major pain in the arse. I'm soon to> > > byte b=2; > > > byte c = a+b; // error cannot convert int to byte > > > > I didn't know that one. That's a bit crap really - where's the int come > > from? > > > Every signed integral calculation is automatically propagated to an int in > C# (except expressions with type long), don't ask me why as I've never > understood this one. > In C it was a bit different, the result of the expression was always the > biggest type of the operands so byte+short yields to short. But if you > assigned it back to an byte there was no error since all types were > automatically converted without warning so it could happen that you lose a > value. > > > > float f = 1.0; // cannot convert double to float > > > > I don't mind that one - I always put 1.0f in my code. > > > Yes but the problem is that every method or constant of the math class > returns double so you always have to cast almost every line of code > especially when using APIs like direct3d which only operates with float. find out though, as I'm now starting work on a big project at home in C#. It seems very good so far - but it's mostly just UI stuff that I've been setting up so far, so I've not been doing much with floats or doubles yet. As for using DirectX in C# - wouldn't that be very slow? I use DirectX at work (I'm a games engine programmer). From what I've read so far about C# - it's not very good for performance intensive applications. Is this right? > As for using DirectX in C# - wouldn't that be very slow? I use DirectX at In my experience Managed DirectX's performance is not bad, officially they> work (I'm a games engine programmer). From what I've read so far about C# - > it's not very good for performance intensive applications. Is this right? say it is 80% of the performance of native DirectX. If you don't create to many new objects during the gameloop (which normally isn't necessary) you won't notice GC. There is a Quake 2 implementation with .NET in the Internet which runs faily good. Also JIT & GC algorithms getting better and better I'll expect that in some time more games will be developed using .NET or Java. "cody" <deutron***@gmx.de> wrote in message foo() & foo(void) have never meant the same thing:news:esoAj50PFHA.2136@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... >void for empty argument lists always has been rubbish because > void foo() and void foo(void) are one and the same. In C & C++ foo() takes an unknown number of parameters (of unknown type) foo(void) takes no parameters In C# foo() takes no parameters foo(void) is a syntax error. void for empty arguments lists is a necessity in C for the reasons I
outlined last night: an empty argument list in C does _not_ mean that there are no arguments. It means that the argument list is unspecified. It could be empty, or it could take 15 arguments. Empty parentheses in C mean that you're "not saying." So, the (void) notation is necessary in order to say that you _are_ specifying what arguments the function takes, and there _aren't any_. Dan, you have to look at it from a semantic point of view, not a syntactic one. Semantically, your workplace standard is correct: you have to say (void) in order to tell the C compiler that the function takes no arguments. However, it's a syntactic hack that was introduced into C because some nitwit in the early days of C thought that "unspecified parameters" function declarations were the way to go. There's no need to introduce such a hack into C#. C# is starting with a clean slate, so it uses the logical notation for methods that take no parameters: empty parentheses. The problem is not that C# has introduced a strange notation to the language. The problem is that C introduced an ugly hack decades ago to get around a bad language design decision. > > Is it just me, or is the removal of support for the word "void" in a Unfortunately, at work it's part of our coding standard that you have to put> > parameter list extremely annoying? Some of us have been programming for > > years putting "void function_name (void)" - and it really doesn't feel nice > > having to miss it out. Is there any reason for them removing this? I don't > > suppose there's a pragma or something to stop the compiler barking about it > > is there? > > But you have to type less, so what's the big deal? ;). Just get used to > () means (nothing) or (void) or (nada) and you're done :) "void" in a function without parameters (we use C at work). So I can't get used to not using it. Dan <dan@nospam.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately, at work it's part of our coding standard that you have to put You'll *have* to get used to C not being the same as C# in many ways. > "void" in a function without parameters (we use C at work). So I can't get > used to not using it. At the same time, you should get used to following the normal C# naming conventions - PascalCasedMethodNames etc. Trying to write C# while pretending it's C is a bad way to learn C#. Treat it as if it were a completely different language as far as you can. -- Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet If replying to the group, please do not mail me too  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics