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>