• Free for personal use• Windows and Mac are supported• Lightweight and easy-to-install• Support multiple code types• Copies codes to clipboardQ:Can I define a parameter in a method that does not necessarily use it?An answer to a question in the comments is that method pointers are pre-defined, and that implies I can define parameters for a method without using them.However, it seems intuitive that a parameter should be defined as something that can be used.A pointer definition would imply that it is possible to use it, but not as a parameter because it is pre-defined.Is there a name for that?A:You're correct in your assumption that it is a good idea to make a parameter a thing that can be used.However, some languages use a feature called a "generic parameter". For example, in C#, you can pass a T parameter to a method, and that parameter is not a generic type. The compiler determines the type of the parameter at runtime, and only specifies what T means. This means that a method that takes a T parameter can only be called with a type argument, and not with an actual object.[A:This is called type erasure. In the Java world, the type parameter is called a var arg, whereas on C# it's called a type constraint.It's important to understand that, despite the name, it is not a single type parameter. It's a type parameter that doesn't exist. It can be used only in method declarations, and not in method calls.Think about method pointers. You could use them as parameters, but then you'd have to pass the method pointer in a register or a memory location, which has semantic implications (a.k.a. documentation problems). This kind of encoding can be replaced by a compiler intrinsic, at the cost of verbosity, but compiler intrinsics have a totally different semantic from parameters, and thus their syntax should not be confused with it.A:This seems to be pretty much what you're asking: variable arity functions. However, the argument can not be pre-defined, it has to be picked at call-time (by the caller). 08929e5ed8