C++Talk.NET C++ language newsgroups   Archives   FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  void and this Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next          C++Talk.NET Forum Index -> C++ language (comp.lang.c++) View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message Jonathan Mcdougall Guest Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 7:23 am    Post subject: Re: void and this Quote: I have a class member function declared as class some_class { ... virtual int call(void); void in an empty parameter list is considered bad style in C++. Quote: }; Can I use this-> inside the function body? Of course, what makes you think you can't? Jonathan Back to top Vladimir Grul Guest Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 7:28 am    Post subject: void and this Hello, I have a class member function declared as class some_class { .... virtual int call(void); }; Can I use this-> inside the function body? Thanks. Vladimir Back to top Attila Feher Guest Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 7:38 am    Post subject: Re: void and this Vladimir Grul wrote: Quote: Hello, I have a class member function declared as class some_class { ... virtual int call(void); Drop the void. C++ is not C. virtual int call(void); and virtual int call(); mean exactly the same Quote: }; Can I use this-> inside the function body? Yes. -- Attila aka WW Back to top Vladimir Grul Guest Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 8:35 am    Post subject: Re: void and this "Jonathan Mcdougall" <jonathanmcdougall (AT) DELyahoo (DOT) ca> writes: Quote: Of course, what makes you think you can't? I was not sure if there is an implicit this in parameter list. Thank you and Attila. Vladimir Back to top David B. Held Guest Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 8:51 am    Post subject: Re: void and this "Jonathan Mcdougall" <jonathanmcdougall (AT) DELyahoo (DOT) ca> wrote Quote: I have a class member function declared as class some_class { ... virtual int call(void); void in an empty parameter list is considered bad style in C++. [...] Since when? Dave --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com)[/url]. Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/2003 Back to top David B. Held Guest Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 8:52 am    Post subject: Re: void and this "Attila Feher" <attila.feher (AT) lmf (DOT) ericsson.se> wrote Quote: Vladimir Grul wrote: Hello, I have a class member function declared as class some_class { ... virtual int call(void); Drop the void. C++ is not C. virtual int call(void); and virtual int call(); mean exactly the same [...] So why does "(void)" mean "C"? Dave --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com)[/url]. Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/2003 Back to top John Carson Guest Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:27 am    Post subject: Re: void and this "David B. Held" <dheld (AT) codelogicconsulting (DOT) com> wrote Quote: "Attila Feher" <attila.feher (AT) lmf (DOT) ericsson.se> wrote in message news:blr63n$be7$1 (AT) newstree (DOT) wise.edt.ericsson.se... Vladimir Grul wrote: Hello, I have a class member function declared as class some_class { ... virtual int call(void); Drop the void. C++ is not C. virtual int call(void); and virtual int call(); mean exactly the same [...] So why does "(void)" mean "C"? Dave If memory serves, in the C language, foo(void) means no arguments, whereas foo() can mean none or one or ... any number of arguments. In C++, by contrast, both foo(void) and foo() mean no arguments. Thus the void is redundant in C++ but meaningful in C. -- John Carson 1. To reply to email address, remove donald 2. Don't reply to email address (post here instead) Back to top Attila Feher Guest Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:33 am    Post subject: Re: void and this David B. Held wrote: Quote: Drop the void. C++ is not C. virtual int call(void); and virtual int call(); mean exactly the same [...] So why does "(void)" mean "C"? So why do you have to pick a quarrel on everything? Have you been bitten by some vendetta bug? To the OP: As I have said above: the void is redundant, and has absolutely no effect on a conforming compiler. And as everything redundant adding no value, the only thing it can add is error, misunderstanding, misleading, wondering collegagues why is it there and so forth. Since a virtual member function needs no portability between C and C++ and the void there adds no value, it is better be left out. -- Attila aka WW Back to top jeffc Guest Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 3:30 pm    Post subject: Re: void and this "Attila Feher" <attila.feher (AT) lmf (DOT) ericsson.se> wrote Quote: So why do you have to pick a quarrel on everything? bwahahahaahahaha Quote: As I have said above: the void is redundant, and has absolutely no effect on a conforming compiler. And as everything redundant adding no value, the only thing it can add is error, misunderstanding, misleading, wondering collegagues why is it there and so forth. Ridiculous. What POSSIBLE "misunderstanding" can come from putting the void in there? It's no more "misleading" than the "public" here struct A { public: int i; }; or the "private" here class A { private: int i; }; Or the parentheses here i = a + (b * c) Back to top WW Guest Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 3:37 pm    Post subject: Re: void and this jeffc wrote: Quote: "Attila Feher" <attila.feher (AT) lmf (DOT) ericsson.se> wrote in message news:blrcse$g6e$1 (AT) newstree (DOT) wise.edt.ericsson.se... So why do you have to pick a quarrel on everything? bwahahahaahahaha Stop trolling please. -- WW aka Attila Back to top Jerry Coffin Guest Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 4:00 pm    Post subject: Re: void and this In article <j933ovcm7c19t5sikqugb3dhmk9dtqk7tp (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, [email]tom_usenet (AT) hotmail (DOT) com[/email] says... [ ... ] Quote: Dennis Ritchie and Doug Ilroy Doug McIlroy perhaps? -- Later, Jerry. The universe is a figment of its own imagination. Back to top tom_usenet Guest Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 4:01 pm    Post subject: Re: void and this On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 03:51:58 -0500, "David B. Held" <dheld (AT) codelogicconsulting (DOT) com> wrote: Quote: "Jonathan Mcdougall" <jonathanmcdougall (AT) DELyahoo (DOT) ca> wrote in message news:D69gb.32006$ti3.513467 (AT) wagner (DOT) videotron.net... I have a class member function declared as class some_class { ... virtual int call(void); void in an empty parameter list is considered bad style in C++. [...] Since when? Dennis Ritchie and Doug Ilroy described use of void to represent an empty parameter list in C as an "abomination". Stroustrup agrees with them, and void f(void); was illegal syntax in the early days of C++. However it was reincorporated into C++ when C89 decided to use that syntax in the interests of compatibility. Tom Back to top tom_usenet Guest Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 4:09 pm    Post subject: Re: void and this On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 16:00:52 GMT, Jerry Coffin <jcoffin (AT) taeus (DOT) com> wrote: Quote: In article <j933ovcm7c19t5sikqugb3dhmk9dtqk7tp (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, [email]tom_usenet (AT) hotmail (DOT) com[/email] says... [ ... ] Dennis Ritchie and Doug Ilroy Doug McIlroy perhaps? Er, yes. Whoops. Tom Back to top Kevin Goodsell Guest Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 6:08 pm    Post subject: Re: void and this John Carson wrote: Quote: If memory serves, in the C language, foo(void) means no arguments, whereas foo() can mean none or one or ... any number of arguments. Actually, it means there is a fixed, but unspecified number of arguments. You still have to pass exactly the right number and type of arguments, but the compiler is unable to check whether you did. It's a relic from before prototypes existed in C. -Kevin -- My email address is valid, but changes periodically. To contact me please use the address from a recent posting. Back to top David B. Held Guest Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 6:21 pm    Post subject: Re: void and this "John Carson" <donaldquixote (AT) datafast (DOT) net.au> wrote Quote: [...] If memory serves, in the C language, foo(void) means no arguments, whereas foo() can mean none or one or ... any number of arguments. In C++, by contrast, both foo(void) and foo() mean no arguments. Thus the void is redundant in C++ but meaningful in C. I understand the distinction and the history, but I still fail to understand why (void) is frowned upon or viewed as "C". I happen to like the explicit way in which it says "this function takes no arguments". Dave --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com)[/url]. Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/2003 Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         C++Talk.NET Forum Index -> C++ language (comp.lang.c++) All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next Page 1 of 4   Jump to: Select a forum C/C++----------------C LanguageC Language (Moderated)C++ Language (Moderated)C++ language (comp.lang.c++)C++ language, library and standards Non-English C/C++ Newsgroups----------------C++ (German)C++ (French)  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2006 phpBB Group SEO toolkit © 2004-2006 webmedic.