Consider replacing `void (*set_errnullf(int errnum))();` with `void (*set_errnullf(int errnum))(void);` in `libslack/err.h`

[shamefulCake1]

diff --git a/libslack/err.h b/libslack/err.h
index 42f6551..2f00294 100644
--- a/libslack/err.h
+++ b/libslack/err.h
@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ void alertsys(int priority, const char *format, ...);
 void valertsys(int priority, const char *format, va_list args);
 int set_errno(int errnum);
 void *set_errnull(int errnum);
-void (*set_errnullf(int errnum))();
+void (*set_errnullf(int errnum))(void);
 _end_decls

There doesn't seem to be a difference between the two, but it seems to make the compiler happier.

[raforg]

Thanks. It should definitely be (void). I'll fix it. I think there is a difference between the two. I think that () means that the parameters are unspecified, and (void) specifically means that there are no parameters. At least () meant very little in very old versions of C before ANSI C function prototyping was really a thing.