[chuck-users] function call syntax(bug?).
signal.automatique at gmail.com
Tue Nov 28 15:26:51 EST 2006
Let's asume we have this function;
fun void greeting()
clearly we would call it like this;
and all would be well. However, if we asume we would be a fairly chaotic
sort of person who would make a large amount of typos, especially at 4 in
the morning while trusting the parser will catch them for him faster then
proofreading will (this is purely hypothetical).
In this case it could theoretically happen that one would by accident type;
This compiles just fine and nothing is wrong except for ChucK not running
The question now is; should ChucK complain about such function calls? Is
there some unforseen practical use in calling no-parameter functions without
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the chuck-users