On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Martin Sebor wrote: > returns a pointer to the selected implementation function. The > implementation functions' declarations must match the API of the > -function being implemented, the resolver's declaration is be a > -function returning pointer to void function returning void: > +function being implemented. The resolver should be declared to > +be a function returning a pointer to a function taking no arguments > +and returning a pointer to a function of the same type as the > +implementation. For example:
The new wording is wrong (extra level of pointer-to-function). I suggest removing this part altogether, it's not useful at all, anyone writing the resolver can deduce what the return type should be based on the fact that a pointer to the implementation is returned. (fwiw a simple 'void *' as return type would work in practice too) Alexander
