FAQ incorrect?

[nroberts]

In the faq for this group:

Q: What's the correct declaration of main()?

A: There are two valid declarations:

int main(void)
int main(int argc, char **argv)

although they can be written in a variety of ways. The second parameter
may be declared char *argv[] (see question 6.4), you can use any names
for the two parameters, and you can use old-style syntax:

int main()

int main(argc, argv)
int argc; char **argv;

.......... http://c-faq.com/ansi/maindecl.html

The way this is worded it makes one think that "int main()" is a valid
declaration of main. However, main is allowed to only take two params
of (int, char **) or 0, correct? In C is not an empty param list an
"unspecifie d" param list? In that case "int main()" would be invalid
as it matches neither of the standard signatures.

Another faq claiming to represent this group has the following text for
the same Q:

A: Either int main(), int main(void), or int main(int argc,
char *argv[]) (with alternate spellings of argc and *argv[]
obviously allowed). See also questions 11.12b to 11.15 below.

References: ISO Sec. 5.1.2.2.1, Sec. G.5.1; H&S Sec. 20.1 p.
416; CT&P Sec. 3.10 pp. 50-51.

............... http://www.faqs.org/faqs/C-faq/faq/

It also has "int main()" but has no reasoning for its validity except
ref to the std I don't have access to. Is that truely a valid
signature? I always thought you _needed_ (void).

[Andrey Tarasevich]

nroberts wrote:

...
although they can be written in a variety of ways. The second parameter
may be declared char *argv[] (see question 6.4), you can use any names
for the two parameters, and you can use old-style syntax:

int main()

int main(argc, argv)
int argc; char **argv;

......... http://c-faq.com/ansi/maindecl.html

The way this is worded it makes one think that "int main()" is a valid
declaration of main. However, main is allowed to only take two params
of (int, char **) or 0, correct? In C is not an empty param list an
"unspecifie d" param list? In that case "int main()" would be invalid
as it matches neither of the standard signatures.

The way it is worded (seeing the "old-style syntax" mentioned and so on) makes
it clear that it is specifically referring to the declaration of 'main', which
is a part of _definition_ of 'main'. When the empty parameter list '()' is used
in a definition, it always means 'no parameters' (equivalent to '(void)'), not
'unspecified parameters'.

...
It also has "int main()" but has no reasoning for its validity except
ref to the std I don't have access to. Is that truely a valid
signature? I always thought you _needed_ (void).
...

Only in the declaration that is not a definition. In a definition '()' and
'(void)' mean the same thing - no parameters.

--
Best regards,
Andrey Tarasevich

[Walter Roberson]

In article <11************ *********@b28g2 000cwb.googlegr oups.com>,
nroberts <ro**********@g mail.comwrote:

>In the faq for this group:

>Q: What's the correct declaration of main()?

>for the two parameters, and you can use old-style syntax:

> int main()

>The way this is worded it makes one think that "int main()" is a valid
declaration of main.

It is.

However, main is allowed to only take two params
of (int, char **) or 0, correct? In C is not an empty param list an
"unspecified " param list?

According to C89 3.5.4.3, an empty parameter list in a function
definition indicates that the function takes no parameters. A single
parameter of void indicates that the function takes no parameters.

In a function declaration that is not the function definition,
then the empty parameter list does indicate unspecified arguments.
--
Programming is what happens while you're busy making other plans.

[Andrey Tarasevich]

Andrey Tarasevich wrote:

...
Only in the declaration that is not a definition. In a definition '()' and
'(void)' mean the same thing - no parameters.
...

Of course, one might argue that the FAQ should state it explicitly that the
declaration being discussed is actually the _definition_ of 'main'. The standard
actually uses the term 'definition' when it list the valid forms of 'main'.

--
Best regards,
Andrey Tarasevich

[jacob navia]

Walter Roberson wrote:

In article <11************ *********@b28g2 000cwb.googlegr oups.com>,
nroberts <ro**********@g mail.comwrote:

>>In the faq for this group:

>>Q: What's the correct declaration of main()?

>>for the two parameters, and you can use old-style syntax:

>> int main()

>>The way this is worded it makes one think that "int main()" is a valid
declaration of main.

It is.

>>However, main is allowed to only take two params
of (int, char **) or 0, correct? In C is not an empty param list an
"unspecifie d" param list?

According to C89 3.5.4.3,

[snip]

Irrelevant since that standard is no longer valid.

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

Walter Roberson wrote:

<snip>

>According to C89 3.5.4.3,

[snip]

Irrelevant since that standard is no longer valid.

It's perfectly valid according to a large number of compilers that support
it and a huge number of programmers who use it. If we were to consider C89
as invalid, then we would have no valid, widely-implemented C standard,
which would be a ridiculous state of affairs.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <S6************ ********@bt.com >,
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invali d.invalidwrote:

>jacob navia said:

>Walter Roberson wrote:

<snip>

>>According to C89 3.5.4.3,

[snip]

Irrelevant since that standard is no longer valid.

It's perfectly valid according to a large number of compilers that support
it and a huge number of programmers who use it. If we were to consider C89
as invalid, then we would have no valid, widely-implemented C standard,
which would be a ridiculous state of affairs.

But, but, but. Wait a second! Phrases like "large number of
compilers", "huge number of programmers", "widely implemented" and
"ridiculous " (this last in the sense of "a condition or position to be
avoided") have no place in and no traction in CLC. Such references to a
stupid (not to mention, inconvenient) little thing known as reality
clearly have no place here. In fact, they are flash-point words that
uniformly stir the "regs" to action/flaming.

Really, you need to re-think that post or you may lose your place in the
he-man newbie-hating society.

[nroberts]

Kenny McCormack wrote:

Really, you need to re-think that post or you may lose your place in the
he-man newbie-hating society.

Hehehe...always interesting how one can inadvertently stir up a bee's
nest...

Thanks for the answers, guys.

[Andrew Poelstra]

On 2006-08-04, nroberts <ro**********@g mail.comwrote:

>
Kenny McCormack wrote:

>Really, you need to re-think that post or you may lose your place in the
he-man newbie-hating society.

Hehehe...always interesting how one can inadvertently stir up a bee's
nest...

If by `one' you mean yourself, you did nothing wrong. If by `one' you
mean McCormack, it wasn't inadvertent. He's a troll, and it's best you
don't respond to his deranged mutterings.

--
Andrew Poelstra <http://www.wpsoftware. net/projects>
To reach me by email, use `apoelstra' at the above domain.
"Do BOTH ends of the cable need to be plugged in?" -Anon.

[Keith Thompson]

jacob navia <ja***@jacob.re mcomp.frwrites:

Walter Roberson wrote:

>In article <11************ *********@b28g2 000cwb.googlegr oups.com>,
nroberts <ro**********@g mail.comwrote:

>>>In the faq for this group:

>>>Q: What's the correct declaration of main()?

>>>for the two parameters, and you can use old-style syntax:

>>> int main()

>>>The way this is worded it makes one think that "int main()" is a valid
declaratio n of main.

It is.

>>>However, main is allowed to only take two params
of (int, char **) or 0, correct? In C is not an empty param list an
"unspecified " param list?

According to C89 3.5.4.3,

[snip]

Irrelevant since that standard is no longer valid.

So I can safely ignore C89/C90 and program strictly in C99? And I can
freely use features like, say, designated initializers and structure
initializers with the dot notation, and not have to worry that some
compiler might not implement them?

You wrote two days ago, in comp.compilers. lcc, that lcc-win32 doesn't
implement those features. Does that mean that lcc-win32 isn't a real
C compiler?

You've argued at times that compiler-specific extensions should be
considered topical here, and at other times that nothing other than
the C99 standard is topical (as opposed to the generally accepted
guideline that C99, C95, C89/C90, K&R C, and even earlier versions of
the language are topical, the latter mostly in historical context).

If you'll put together a coherent and consistent set of topicality
guidelines, let us know and we might consider it (no guarantees of
course) -- or maybe you can set up your own alt.* newsgroup. Until
then, perhaps you'd consider letting the rest of us work these things
out for ourselves.

It is a fact that the C90 standard is still very relevant, and this
newsgroup is the appropriate place to discuss it, your fantasies to
the contrary notwithstanding .

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.