On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:57:30 +0100
Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai <asmodai@wxs.nl> wrote:
> -On [20050111 06:32], Chris Pressey (cpressey@catseye.mine.nu) wrote:
> >2. It seems GCC accepts
> > int foo(__unused int arg)
> > just as easily as
> > int foo(int arg __unused)
> > I've been using the first version, this patch uses the
> > second version, and style(9) is silent on the issue.
> > Does the DragonFly community have a preference?
>
> Quick comment, not having checked the source in question.
>
> But if you need to mark a function having an argument that is not
> used, what's the point in having the argument present at all?
They're usually functions that must conform to some function type.
Often they're signal handlers; these ones happen to be callbacks.
-Chris
> In my eyes that constitutes a design problem which you are now
> effectively masking away.
>
> --
> Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(at)wxs.nl> / asmodai / kita no
> mono Free Tibet! http://www.savetibet.org/ |
> http://ashemedai.deviantart.com/
> http://www.tendra.org/ | http://www.in-nomine.org/
> Cum angelis et pueris, fideles inveniamur. Quis est iste Rex
> gloriae..?
>