Re: void vs void* (philosophical question)
- From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:01:34 GMT
Chris Torek <nospam@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
In article <e82s8v$ho9$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Giannis Papadopoulos <ipapadop@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
According to the standard (ISO C99 draft WG14/N1124), void is the
incomplete type that cannot be completed and comprises the empty set of
values. Since it declares the absense of a value can it be considered a
data type?
In a larger, "not Standard C" sense, yes. In Standard C, however,
types are partitioned into "object types", "function types", and
"incomplete types". (The Standard does not define "data type" but
logically it would appear to map to "object type". Interestingly,
my C99 draft *uses* the phrase "data types" in the description of
<wchar.h>, in paragraph 1 of section 7.19.1. It is clear enough
that it does not mean "incomplete types" here. Perhaps the phrasing
was changed in the final standard, though.)
Are you sure about that section number? In both n869 and the final
standard, 7.19 is <stdio.h>; <wchar.h> is 7.24.
In the C99 standard, 7.19.1p1 says:
The header <stdio.h> declares three types, several macros, and
many functions for performing input and output.
and 7.24.1p1 says:
The header <wchar.h> declares four data types, one tag, four
macros, and many functions.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@xxxxxxx <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
.
- References:
- void vs void* (philosophical question)
- From: Giannis Papadopoulos
- Re: void vs void* (philosophical question)
- From: Chris Torek
- void vs void* (philosophical question)
- Prev by Date: Re: So what Standard are we working off?
- Next by Date: Re: So what Standard are we working off?
- Previous by thread: Re: void vs void* (philosophical question)
- Next by thread: Linked list, no out put,help
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|