From -3668588593784665166 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,e9e1afdef4e59ad4 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f78e5,1cc36d28cf02dcb6,start X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-12-08 21:34:06 PST Xref: gmd.de comp.lang.c++:40062 comp.std.c++:4639 Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.std.c++ Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!netcomsv!netcom.com!rfg From: rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) Subject: Re: Problems trying to pass an object pointer to a constructo Message-ID: Followup-To: comp.std.c++ Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) References: <2cu1uk$bm7@avdms8.msfc.nasa.gov> <754165592snz@ncc1701.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 08:48:10 GMT Lines: 30 In article <754165592snz@ncc1701.demon.co.uk> STeve@ncc1701.demon.co.uk writes: >In article <2cu1uk$bm7@avdms8.msfc.nasa.gov> > brandon@gaia.msfc.nasa.gov "Brandon S. Dewberry" writes: > >[stuff deleted] > >> >> CVS_SYSTEM cvs(); >> > ^^ > >The parentheses are the problem. Stroustrup's reference manual >(r.8.4 Initializers) states that the above "is not a declaration of an object >of type [whatever], but a function taking no argument and returning >[whatever]". I wonder if it had ever occured to anyone on the C++ standardization committee that this particular (unfortunate) syntactic ambiguity could have been eliminated from the language simply be requiring that functions accepting no arguments be declared with an argument list of `(void)'. Anyone know if this point was ever discussed? (Follow-ups to comp.std.c++ please.) -- -- Ronald F. Guilmette, Sunnyvale, California ------------------------------- ------ domain address: rfg@netcom.com --------------------------------------- ------ uucp address: ...!uunet!netcom.com!rfg -------------------------------