Very odd compiling error...

Or it seems odd to me.

Here is the prototype of the function in question:

Code:

void getNumber(int &i);

here is the definition:

Code:

void getNumber(int &ri)
{
	char a[256];
	char *p;
	int isNum;
	int isSize;
	
	cout << endl << "Enter the NUMBER: ";
	cin.get(a,256);
	cin.ignore(80, '\n');
	isNum = checkNumeric(a);
	if(isNum == 1)
	{
		p = &a[0];
		ri = atoi(p);
		isSize = checkSize(ri);
		if(isSize != 1)
		{
			ri = getNumber();
		}
	}
	if(isNum == 0) 
	{
		ri = getNumber();
	}
}

And here are the errors:

Code:

asef.cpp: In function `void getNumber(int&)': 
asef.cpp:85: too few arguments to function `void getNumber(int&)' 
asef.cpp:102: at this point in file 
asef.cpp:102: void value not ignored as it ought to be 
asef.cpp:85: too few arguments to function `void getNumber(int&)' 
asef.cpp:107: at this point in file 
asef.cpp:107: void value not ignored as it ought to be

I'm quite rusty on references, but comparing my code to example code, I can't quite seem whats causing it. What could it be?

P.S. -> checkNumeric checks to see if the user enter a number. If he/she/it didn't, it returns 0, if he does, it returns 1. checkSize makes sure the user doesn't enter a number too large for the int to handle - returns 0 if it is too big, 1 if it isn't.

that's easy, you make a recursive call to getNumber with no parameters inside the function. "too few parameters" get it?

Usually the errors tell you. Just pick the one with
lowest line number and go from there.
getNumber takes a parameter and you are calling
it with no parameters. It returns nothing and you are
trying to use it's return.

those erros point to later in your code after the prototype/definition i'd assume, so psot the code where you call this function...

plus, your "new" declaration of getNumber returns void and your recursive calls are setting a number equal to the function call

Originally posted by FillYourBrain
that's easy, you make a recursive call to getNumber with no parameters inside the function. "too few parameters" get it?

d'OH! Thats what happens when you have week old code, change the return type of a function, and then lazily forget to check the code for correctness!

Stupid me!

By the way, thanks for the quick replies - I posted this like 5 minutes ago!