Hey Tom, On 27 November 2015 at 01:44, Stefan Schmidt <ste...@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> Hello. > > On 26/11/15 17:39, Tom Hacohen wrote: > > As you said in the commit message, and just to correct terminology: > > > > You are not "forcing empty function parameters", it's just how the > > syntax works. > > > > int foo(); // Unspecified parameters > > int foo(void); // No parameters > > > > So probably it should be better described as "correct declaration of > > function with no parameters". > > > > I'm being a bit pedantic, but it's just that obviously someone (whoever > > wrote that code) doesn't know the difference, so it's important to make > > it crystal clear for current and future contributors. > > Point taken. The batch for elm will use the changed subject line. > > Why did you go through the trouble of adding this (void) in the headers but not in the implementation? Looks like a job half done to me... Best regards, -- Jean-Philippe André ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
