Seems reasonable. I'm not sure who would have the bandwidth to patch it. Anyone?
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Andrew DeFaria <andrew.defa...@tellabs.com > wrote: > Inline::C does not like functions declared as "void Foo(void)". You need to > define it as "void Foo()". But "void Foo(void)" is technically valid so why > does Inline::C barf on it? > > We have a situation where the client has to define parameterless functions > with the (void) syntax. This causes problems for the tool I wrote since > Inline::C does not accept the paramterless (void) notation. Why is it that > this causes Inline::C problems? Can this be fixed to allow (void)? > -- > Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com> > Who so loves believes the impossible. - Elizabeth Barrett Browning > >
