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).

[Richard Heathfield]

Default User said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Rod Pemberton said:

[who cares]

>You are easily amused.

Why feed the troll?

Unlike you, I am not yet convinced that Rod Pemberton is a troll. As I said
back in May:

'It is possible that "troll" is the wrong word for Mr Pemberton, but our
experience of him here in clc has not been a pleasant one. He has certainly
not endeared himself to the group. Many of the people you would probably
consider to be "good posters" have killfiled him. Even amongst those who
have not, I don't know of any who would be particularly keen to sing his
praises. If you want to understand why people here have a certain antipathy
to Mr Pemberton, you could do worse than to research his posting history in
this newsgroup. In my estimation, such research would explain to you why
people are labeling him "troll" (whether or not that label is, strictly
speaking, accurate - which in my view it probably is not).'

I've seen little or nothing since then to make me more, or less, convinced
that Rod Pemberton is trolling the group.

--
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)

[Frederick Gotham]

Dann Corbit posted:

I also have a friend who has 500,000 lines of code perfectly memorized
in his head. He's at the other end of the spectrum.

I'd love to have mental abilities like that!

(I ask this respectfully:

People who have mental abilities like that; are they invariably people
who present some sort of (detrimental) psychological or mental condition?

Just curious. I've seen films like "Rain man" and so forth, but I've never
heard of anyone who had superior mental capabilities and who didn't present
with a condition such as autism.

--

Frederick Gotham

[Richard Heathfield]

Frederick Gotham said:

Dann Corbit posted:

>I also have a friend who has 500,000 lines of code perfectly memorized
in his head. He's at the other end of the spectrum.

I'd love to have mental abilities like that!

(I ask this respectfully:

People who have mental abilities like that; are they invariably people
who present some sort of (detrimental) psychological or mental condition?

I'd have said that the ability to memorise half a million lines of code
indicates a /good/ mind, not a bad one.

Just curious. I've seen films like "Rain man" and so forth, but I've never
heard of anyone who had superior mental capabilities and who didn't
present with a condition such as autism.

I invite you to consider Einstein, Newton, Galileo, da Vinci, Avogadro,
Dalton, Boyle, von Neumann, Feynman, Boole, Shannon, Faraday, Gauss,
Franklin, Cantor, Hilbert, Fermat, Turing, Darwin, Snell, Tesla, Curie,
Davy, Euler, Abel, Lorentz, Feigenbaum, Oppenheimer, ...

Is it your contention that /all/ these people suffered from autism?

--
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)

[Default User]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Default User said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Rod Pemberton said:

[who cares]

You are easily amused.

Why feed the troll?

Unlike you, I am not yet convinced that Rod Pemberton is a troll.

Wow.

Brian

[Frederick Gotham]

Richard Heathfield posted:

>Just curious. I've seen films like "Rain man" and so forth, but I've
never heard of anyone who had superior mental capabilities and who
didn't present with a condition such as autism.

I invite you to consider Einstein, Newton, Galileo, da Vinci, Avogadro,
Dalton, Boyle, von Neumann, Feynman, Boole, Shannon, Faraday, Gauss,
Franklin, Cantor, Hilbert, Fermat, Turing, Darwin, Snell, Tesla, Curie,
Davy, Euler, Abel, Lorentz, Feigenbaum, Oppenheimer, ...

Is it your contention that /all/ these people suffered from autism?

No. I expressed that I knew very little about people who had superior
mental capabilities, and then I inquired if such superior mental
capabilities are reserved only for those who have some sort of
mental/psychological condition. It was a genuine inquiry.

I was not referring to actual intelligence by the way, but rather
"superhuman " capabilities such as memorising half a million lines of code,
or calculating 478 to the power of 5 within a few seconds.

There are indeed some great minds among the people you listed above, but
how many of them had "superhuman " mental powers, such as memorising half a
million lines of code?

--

Frederick Gotham

[Richard Heathfield]

Frederick Gotham said:

<snip>

I was not referring to actual intelligence by the way, but rather
"superhuman " capabilities such as memorising half a million lines of code,
or calculating 478 to the power of 5 within a few seconds.

24953960486368 - what's so hard about that?

There are indeed some great minds among the people you listed above, but
how many of them had "superhuman " mental powers, such as memorising half a
million lines of code?

I think we have to take the "half a million lines" thing with a pinch of
salt. After all, imagine how long it would take to verify. You could do
some random sampling, of course, to give you some confidence in the
veracity of the claim, but until you'd tested him on the whole
half-million, would you really believe the claim entirely? And even if you
could verify it at a line a second, spending eight hours a day on it, it
would still take well over a fortnight to do.

I would be more inclined to accept the claim if we interpret it as "knows
the half-million-line code base so well that, asked about any given aspect
of the code, he can take you to the relevant function(s) very quickly".

--
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)

[Keith Thompson]

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

No. I expressed that I knew very little about people who had superior
mental capabilities, and then I inquired if such superior mental
capabilities are reserved only for those who have some sort of
mental/psychological condition. It was a genuine inquiry.

And I'm sure there are newsgroups where that question would be
topical.

--
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.

[Michael Wojcik]

In article <4j************ @individual.net >, "Default User" <de***********@ yahoo.comwrites :

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Default User said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:
>Rod Pemberton said:
>
[who cares]
>
>You are easily amused.
Why feed the troll?

Unlike you, I am not yet convinced that Rod Pemberton is a troll.

Wow.

I can see that some might want to distinguish between those who
primarily seek to disrupt the newsgroup - whom I would label "troll"
- and those who are merely arrogant, ignorant asses prone to vapid
arguments, such as Rod.

I imagine the real trolls, such as Kenny, are often hard-working folk
dedicated to producing content-free flame-bait posts, and they might
feel slighted by a comparison with others who are honestly, if
clumsily, trying to carry on a real argument. For that matter,
couldn't lumping the two groups together be considered much the sort
of gross generalization that Rod himself committed with his
entertainingly stupid "programmer s in the US are failed physicists"
claim?

I imagine many of us[1] arrogant, somewhat-informed asses would not
want to be casually thrown in either of the previous two groups -
should we not show them the same courtesy?

Of course, that's not necessarily any reason to read Rod's postings.
I just offer it as a possible justification for the distinction
Richard is drawing.
[1] The inclusivity or exclusivity of this plural first-person
pronoun is left to the discretion of the reader.

--
Michael Wojcik mi************@ microfocus.com

The lecturer was detailing a proof on the blackboard. He started to say,
"From the above it is obvious that ...". Then he stepped back and thought
deeply for a while. Then he left the room. We waited. Five minutes
later he returned smiling and said, "Yes, it is obvious", and continued
to outline the proof. -- John O'Gorman

[Nick Keighley]

CBFalconer wrote:

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.

actually google fixed that some time ago
--
Nick Keighley

[Rod Pemberton]

"Default User" <de***********@ yahoo.comwrote in message
news:4j******** ****@individual .net...

Dann Corbit wrote:

"Rod Pemberton" <do*********@bi tfoad.cmmwrote in message
news:11******** *****@dscnews2. dcccd.edu...

What people do you think become programmers in the US? Do you
understand that it is the people who have no chance of entering a
higher paid field: physicist, mathematician, electrical engineer,
or architect, etc... that become computer programmers?

I have worked with hundreds of programmers who get over $100/hour.

Remember that Pemberton is a troll.

Mr. Rodenborn it appears you _still_ don't know the difference between a
troll (someone who intends to incite for the joy of a negative response) and
someone stating the facts of their experiences (which may be totally
different to yours or even radical or unacceptable from your narrow
perspective...) .

You're better off killfiling or at least ignoring his rants.

Are you able to do so without comment? It appears not. From your Google
post history, the entire world is comprised of trolls, except one: you.
Rod Pemberton