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).

[Default User]

Keith Thompson wrote:

Frederick Gotham <fg*******@SPAM .comwrites:

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to
reminding others not to respond to trolls.

Yes, we know.

Usually someone posts a single followup to anyone who responds to the
troll in question, and that generally works reasonably well. Starting
a new thread gives the troll more attention.

Not actually a new thread, at least for most of us. It's a change in
subject in an existing thread.

Brian

[Frederick Gotham]

Default User posted:

Not actually a new thread, at least for most of us. It's a change in
subject in an existing thread.

I just clicked "Reply", and then changed what was written in the "Subject"
textbox... didn't think it would have an effect on threading?

--

Frederick Gotham

[Al Balmer]

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 13:59:04 GMT, Frederick Gotham
<fg*******@SPAM .comwrote:

>Default User posted:

>Not actually a new thread, at least for most of us. It's a change in
subject in an existing thread.

I just clicked "Reply", and then changed what was written in the "Subject"
textbox... didn't think it would have an effect on threading?

Depends on how people choose to display threads. My reader can start a
new thread when the subject changes, or not. Usually, I find it useful
to start a new thread, since the topic has changed.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ

[Keith Thompson]

Frederick Gotham <fg*******@SPAM .comwrites:

Default User posted:

>Not actually a new thread, at least for most of us. It's a change in
subject in an existing thread.

>
I just clicked "Reply", and then changed what was written in the "Subject"
textbox... didn't think it would have an effect on threading?

I had already read the previous articles in the thread, so my
newsreader didn't display them. My newsreader probably displayed your
article as continuation of the thread (I'm not sure how or whether it
distinguishes that), but since the subject header didn't start with
"Re:" I assumed it was a new thread. I had to check the headers to
verify that it was a followup to something else.

Changing the subject header in a followup us usually not a good idea;
if you do so, it's usually a good idea to refer to the previous
subject ("New Subject (was: Old Subject)".

--
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.

[Default User]

Al Balmer wrote:

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 13:59:04 GMT, Frederick Gotham
<fg*******@SPAM .comwrote:

Default User posted:

Not actually a new thread, at least for most of us. It's a change

in >subject in an existing thread.

I just clicked "Reply", and then changed what was written in the
"Subject" textbox... didn't think it would have an effect on
threading?

Depends on how people choose to display threads. My reader can start a
new thread when the subject changes, or not. Usually, I find it useful
to start a new thread, since the topic has changed.

You can view it that way, but it's not actually a new thread. By that I
mean the poster did not create a new thread, but used the reply
mechanism with a change in subject. The references will be there to
link it to the previous messages in the thread.


Brian

[Al Balmer]

On 5 Aug 2006 19:42:43 GMT, "Default User" <de***********@ yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Al Balmer wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 13:59:04 GMT, Frederick Gotham
<fg*******@SPA M.comwrote:

Default User posted:

Not actually a new thread, at least for most of us. It's a change

in >subject in an existing thread.

>

I just clicked "Reply", and then changed what was written in the
"Subject" textbox... didn't think it would have an effect on
threading?

Depends on how people choose to display threads. My reader can start a
new thread when the subject changes, or not. Usually, I find it useful
to start a new thread, since the topic has changed.

You can view it that way, but it's not actually a new thread.

If I choose to view it that way, it is. As far as I'm concerned, if I
tell Agent to start a new thread on a subject change, there's no
discernible difference (I don't display the references header.)

By that I
mean the poster did not create a new thread, but used the reply
mechanism with a change in subject.

Yes, we know. He said that.

The references will be there to
link it to the previous messages in the thread.

We know that, too.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ

[Default User]

Al Balmer wrote:

On 5 Aug 2006 19:42:43 GMT, "Default User" <de***********@ yahoo.com>
wrote:

You can view it that way, but it's not actually a new thread.

If I choose to view it that way, it is. As far as I'm concerned, if I
tell Agent to start a new thread on a subject change, there's no
discernible difference (I don't display the references header.)

But that's not the normal definition of a new thread.

By that I
mean the poster did not create a new thread, but used the reply
mechanism with a change in subject.

Yes, we know. He said that.

Ok.
Brian

[CBFalconer]

Frederick Gotham wrote:

Default User posted:

>Not actually a new thread, at least for most of us. It's a change
in subject in an existing thread.

I just clicked "Reply", and then changed what was written in the
"Subject" textbox... didn't think it would have an effect on
threading?

It doesn't, in proper news readers that use the 'references' header
field correctly. Some stupid systems, such as Google, ignore that
field and depend on the subject header alone.

--
Chuck F (cb********@yah oo.com) (cb********@mai neline.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home .att.netUSE maineline address!

[ena8t8si]

Andrey Tarasevich wrote:

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.

Not quite the same thing. Only the definition with (void)
serves as a prototype.

[Rod Pemberton]

"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.orgw rote in message
news:ln******** ****@nuthaus.mi b.org...

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)

Why are you so paternalistic? Nobody cares what you have to say or what
rules you want to impose upon us. You post enough on your own, that you
should have your own newsgroup... And, you could block me, Kenny, Jacob,
etc. or anyone you're to immature to deal with without comment...
Rod Pemberton