• Timothee Cour via Digitalmars-d-learn (3/3) Jun 13 2015 I understand this is legal for declaration wo definition (void fun(int);...
• Adam D. Ruppe (4/4) Jun 13 2015 Sometimes you have empty functions and/or unused parameters just
• Maxim Fomin (5/9) Jun 13 2015 Actually it is void test(int _param_0) { }
• ketmar (3/13) Jun 13 2015 yet one shouldn't rely on generated names, they are undocumented on=20

Timothee Cour via Digitalmars-d-learn <digitalmars-d-learn puremagic.com> writes:

I understand this is legal for declaration wo definition (void fun(int);)
but why allow this:
void test(int){} ?

"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:

Sometimes you have empty functions and/or unused parameters just 
to fulfill some interface but you don't actually care about the 
arguments passed. No need to name them if you aren't going to use 
them.

"Maxim Fomin" <maxim-fomin outlook.com> writes:

On Sunday, 14 June 2015 at 01:20:39 UTC, Timothee Cour wrote:
 I understand this is legal for declaration wo definition (void 
 fun(int);)
 but why allow this:
 void test(int){} ?

Actually it is void test(int _param_0) { }
You can test by compiling void test(int) { _param_0 = 0; }

Nameless parameters are simulated by providing internal symbol as 
above.

ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org> writes:

On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 05:11:17 +0000, Maxim Fomin wrote:

 On Sunday, 14 June 2015 at 01:20:39 UTC, Timothee Cour wrote:
 I understand this is legal for declaration wo definition (void
 fun(int);)
 but why allow this:
 void test(int){} ?

=20
 Actually it is void test(int _param_0) { }
 You can test by compiling void test(int) { _param_0 =3D 0; }
=20
 Nameless parameters are simulated by providing internal symbol as above.

yet one shouldn't rely on generated names, they are undocumented on=20
purpose, and can change without a notice and deprecation cycle.=