From:	cwalsh AT nf DOT sympatico DOT ca (Colin Walsh)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Reading the command line
Date:	29 Oct 97 03:59:42 GMT
Organization:	Colossal Software
Lines:	31
Distribution:	world
Message-ID:	<3456b4ae.0@204.101.95.15>
References:	<62pk3q$3q$1 AT panther DOT rmplc DOT co DOT uk> <34505783 DOT 3DE3 AT swcp DOT com> <3450663B DOT 4202 AT rug DOT ac DOT be> <62q0ic$73f$1 AT panther DOT rmplc DOT co DOT uk> <345088C1 DOT E26 AT rug DOT ac DOT be> <34568B58 DOT 7B61 AT swcp DOT com>
Reply-To:	cwalsh AT nf DOT sympatico DOT ca
NNTP-Posting-Host:	204.101.95.15
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

In article <34568B58 DOT 7B61 AT swcp DOT com>
"H.W. Stockman" <hwstock AT swcp DOT com> wrote:

> Vik Heyndrickx wrote:
>> 
>> Jon Seanor wrote:
>> >
>> > >And the return type of main is int, not void. That should be in any text
>> > >book too.
>> >
>> > Only if you want to return something!
>> 
>> The standard tells that the return type of main is int and not void.
> 
> Many compilers will gleefully let you declare
> void main(){}
> ...without a single complaint.  However, the consequences
> of mixing order of argc and argv[] are likely to be
> more significant.

Actually, if you use the -Wall switch when compiling it tells you:
warning: return type for `main' changed to integer type
So, the compiler realizes your mistake and fixes it for you, but I
still think that one should go with the standard (I will admit
that up until recently I've been using void main() :)

Just rambling,
Colin Walsh
cwalsh AT nf DOT sympatico DOT ca

- Raw text -