Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[diff.stmt] Properly refer to function return types #5170

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 19, 2022

Conversation

jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

Also annotate the 'void' and 'int' keywords.

Partially addresses #3908.

Also annotate the 'void' and 'int' keywords.
@@ -2261,7 +2261,7 @@
promising to return a value of a given type, and then not returning
such a value, has always been recognized to be a questionable
practice, tolerated only because very-old C had no distinction between
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why is "very-old" hyphenated? Is there a better way to refer to pre-ANSI C?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't know. That's pre-existing, though.

@tkoeppe tkoeppe merged commit cec2d21 into cplusplus:main Jan 19, 2022
@jensmaurer jensmaurer deleted the c72 branch January 19, 2022 23:18
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants