Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      05 Sep 1996 02:12:39 -0500
From:      Zach Heilig <zach@blizzard.gaffaneys.com>
To:        adrian@virginia.edu
Cc:        Paul DuBois <dubois@primate.wisc.edu>, "Kevin P. Neal" <kpneal@pobox.com>, hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: void main
Message-ID:  <87loepbfko.fsf@freebsd.gaffaneys.com>
In-Reply-To: "Adrian T. Filipi-Martin"'s message of Wed, 4 Sep 1996 12:06:22 -0400 (EDT)
References:  <Pine.SUN.3.90.960904120040.3546D-100000@stretch.cs.Virginia.edu>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Adrian T. Filipi-Martin" <atf3r@cs.virginia.edu> writes:

> 	What's wrong with this version? ;-)

> int main (int argc, char *argv[], char *env[]);

It is listed as a common extension in either an appendix or footnote
of the standard (don't remember, and I don't have it in front of me),
so even though neither are considered part of the standard, it is
obvious that the standards committee was seriously considering adding
it.  Why they didn't is beyond be (but Terry Labert's explanation
might be close to the real reason).

Besides, there is nothing preventing a compiler from documenting
extensions to the language.  Gcc has lots of extensions.  There are
even compilers that have 'void main(void)' practically documented (it
is used in some examples, which is close enough), but it is not a
documented extension to gcc.  That it appears to work in some
situations is an accident.

-- 
Zach Heilig (zach@blizzard.gaffaneys.com) | ALL unsolicited commercial email
Support bacteria -- it's the              | is unwelcome.  I avoid dealing
only culture some people have!            | with companies that email ads.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?87loepbfko.fsf>