BO> C++ assumes a void return list if nothign is specified
No it doesn't.  "Common" C++ assumes an *int* return type if none is 
specified in a function declaration.  This is because it evolved from C, 
which did the same thing.  In Standard C++, such code is ill-formed.  All 
function declarations must include a return type in Standard C++.
 BO> an exception to this is class constructors which always has a 
 BO> return value of a pointer to an instance to the class in question. 
If your C++ compiler allows you to give a constructor declaration a return 
type, then your C++ compiler is seriously broken.  Not even Common C++ allows 
that.  The return type of a constructor may not be specified in Standard C++.
 BO> C++ assumes a void parameter list if nothing is written inside the
 BO> brackets. 
As I said before, this is backwards.  It is C that assumes an empty parameter 
list when it encounters the single keyword "void".  C++, which does not allow 
K&R-style function declarations, and so can recognise a function declaration 
with nothing between the brackets as a function that has an empty parameter 
list, supports this "void kludge" merely for compatibility with C.  
 ¯ JdeBP ®
--- FleetStreet 1.19 NR
---------------