Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
From:	Peter Berdeklis <peter AT atmosp DOT physics DOT utoronto DOT ca>
Subject:	Re: main() {...} (was: using rhide)
Message-ID:	<Pine.SGI.3.91.970129172453.2282B-100000@chinook.physics.utoronto.ca>
Nntp-Posting-Host:	chinook.physics.utoronto.ca
Sender:	news AT info DOT physics DOT utoronto DOT ca (System Administrator)
Mime-Version:	1.0
Organization:	University of Toronto - Dept. of Physics
In-Reply-To:	<32EBD708.3A72@cs.com>
Date:	Wed, 29 Jan 1997 22:28:48 GMT
References:	<01bbf2bd$ec4f95c0$590520ce AT d-moran> <01bc0b1f$c48e8ee0$94b15380 AT maan-m DOT -hamze> <5cfriq$1ql AT news1 DOT panix DOT com> <32eb7846 DOT 2272143 AT ursa DOT smsu DOT edu> <32EBD708 DOT 3A72 AT cs DOT com>
Lines:	21
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Implicit void in an empty argument list is ANSI compliant C, and proper 
C++ (according to the draft standard).

Implicit int is ANSI compliant C (unfortunately), but not proper C++.

---------------
Peter Berdeklis
Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Toronto

On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, John M. Aldrich wrote:

> You can use either int main( void ) or int main( int argc, char **argv )
> depending on what your program needs to do.  (Note BTW that I use **argv
> instead of *argv[]; I have heard that the latter will not work with a
> few compilers.)  But omitting the return type and the void argument is
> just not a safe practice, and later versions of gcc will give you
> warnings if you omit them, especially when compiling C++.
> 
> The C++ spec is even less forgiving of default return types and empty
> arglists than the C spec.

- Raw text -