31 Aug
2000
31 Aug
'00
11:04 p.m.
You're setting yourself up for inconsistency if you don't always use a prototypical definition. In the above example, foo() must be declared/defined using a prototype (or you get warnings from gcc when you compile with -Wmissing-prototypes (which is recommended for developers)). But you're saying bar() should *not* have a prototype.
-1 on dropping the "void" from the definition. I disagree it is bad form, and it sets us up for inconsistencies.
We discussed this briefly today in our group chat, and I'm +0 or Greg's recommendation (that's +0 on keeping (void) in definitions). --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.pythonlabs.com/~guido/)