By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,080 Members | 1,845 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,080 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

The_Sage & void main()

P: n/a
The_Sage, I see you've gotten yourself a twin asking for program in
comp.lang.c++ .
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl...c71c33c&rnum=1
If you the oh so mighty programmer that you pretend to be, why don't you
just write some? (And oh, void main is still not allow by the C++ standard.)

Seeming as how you tried to quote the standard in an attempt to pretend
you're right, I'll quote the standard to once and for all destory all your
arguements.

C++ standard 3.6.1 Main function
Paragraph 5
"A return statement in main has the effect of leaving the main function
(destroying any objects with automatic storage duration) and calling exit
with the return value as the argument. If control reaches the end of main
without encountering a return statement, the effect is that of executing
return 0;"

Now, not even an idiot like you can argue with what it says here. Either an
return value have been specificed, or the main function return 0 by default.
Could you please tell everyone in your (imaginary) infinte wisdom how main
can be of type void if it return a value?
(Oh btw, that paragraph from the standard is only 3 paragraphs down (on the
same page) from what you quoted, if only you had learn how to read
properly.....)

Kwan Ting
--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
Jul 19 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
192 Replies


P: n/a
WW
Kwan Ting wrote:
[SNIP]
Seeming as how you tried to quote the standard in an attempt to
pretend you're right, I'll quote the standard to once and for
all destory all your arguements.

[SNIP]

He doesn't even know what the standard is. I quoted it, then he picked out
one sentence and started to misinterpret it.

--
WW aka Attila
Jul 19 '05 #2

P: n/a

"WW" wrote

He doesn't even know what the standard is. I quoted it, then he picked out one sentence and started to misinterpret it.

--
WW aka Attila


Ah yes, one of his many personailities know what the standard is, while
another doesn't...
Nice to see how someone can understand something only if it suits the
person.... :D

Kwan Ting
--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
Jul 19 '05 #3

P: n/a
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:53:32 +0100
"Kwan Ting" <me@here.com> wrote:
The_Sage, I see you've gotten yourself a twin asking for program in
comp.lang.c++ .
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl...c71c33c&rnum=1


ROFLMAO :)
Jul 19 '05 #4

P: n/a
WW
Johannes Kroll wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:53:32 +0100
"Kwan Ting" <me@here.com> wrote:
The_Sage, I see you've gotten yourself a twin asking for program in
comp.lang.c++ .
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl...c71c33c&rnum=1
ROFLMAO :)


Do you like it? I wrote it. ;-) Really. (Me proud :-) )

--
WW aka Attila
Jul 19 '05 #5

P: n/a
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:09:02 +0300
"WW" <wo***@freemail.hu> wrote:
Johannes Kroll wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:53:32 +0100
"Kwan Ting" <me@here.com> wrote:
The_Sage, I see you've gotten yourself a twin asking for program in
comp.lang.c++ .
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl...c71c33c&rnum=1

ROFLMAO :)


Do you like it? I wrote it. ;-) Really. (Me proud :-) )


Even better than the real thing. Almost - no one beats The Sage. :)

--
WW aka Attila

Jul 19 '05 #6

P: n/a
"WW" <wo***@freemail.hu> wrote in message
news:bk**********@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
Johannes Kroll wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:53:32 +0100
"Kwan Ting" <me@here.com> wrote:
The_Sage, I see you've gotten yourself a twin asking for program in
comp.lang.c++ .

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl...c71c33c&rnum=1
ROFLMAO :)


Do you like it? I wrote it. ;-) Really. (Me proud :-) )

--
WW aka Attila


I'm proud of you WW :-)
--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine

Jul 19 '05 #7

P: n/a

"WW" <wo***@freemail.hu> wrote in message news:bk**********@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
Kwan Ting wrote:
[SNIP]
Seeming as how you tried to quote the standard in an attempt to
pretend you're right, I'll quote the standard to once and for
all destory all your arguements.

[SNIP]

He doesn't even know what the standard is. I quoted it, then he picked out
one sentence and started to misinterpret it.


That's okay, I can beat that.
I posted some assembly code with some "almost equivalent" C code
in the comments and he accused me of posting C code, not assembly :-)

I'm sure, however, that he'll claim he ran my assembly code through
the Borland, Microsoft, and IBM compilers and all three accepted
the code just fine :-)
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Jul 19 '05 #8

P: n/a
>Reply to article by: "Kwan Ting" <me@here.com>
Date written: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:53:32 +0100
MsgID:<wl******************@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net> If you the oh so mighty programmer that you pretend to be, why don't you
just write some? (And oh, void main is still not allow by the C++ standard.)
I have, now it is your turn.
Seeming as how you tried to quote the standard
I didn't try, I actually did quote the standard.
in an attempt to pretend
you're right, I'll quote the standard to once and for all destory all your
arguements.
Oh, I'm so scared...
C++ standard 3.6.1 Main function
Paragraph 5
"A return statement in main has the effect of leaving the main function
(destroying any objects with automatic storage duration) and calling exit
with the return value as the argument. If control reaches the end of main
without encountering a return statement, the effect is that of executing
return 0;"


Nothing there says anything about not being able to use void main() and you
haven't offered any explainantion why they would want to contradict themselves
by stating earlier that "other implementations" of main() were allowed. In
addition to that, you also have not offered any explanation of why would IBM,
MS, and Borland agree with my interpretation and not yours? Once again, you are
just another example of an illiterate asshole who doesn't have a clue. You are
going to need more than your big mouth and your little brain if you want to
offer an intelligent argument that will stand up to the facts. Now go away with
your tail tucked between your legs, and don't come back until you get a clue.

The Sage

================================================== ===========
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
================================================== ===========
Jul 19 '05 #9

P: n/a
The_Sage wrote:
Reply to article by: "Kwan Ting" <me@here.com>
Date written: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:53:32 +0100
MsgID:<wl******************@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
If you the oh so mighty programmer that you pretend to be, why
don't you just write some? (And oh, void main is still not allow by
the C++ standard.)


I have, now it is your turn.


You did not. Now it is your turn.
Seeming as how you tried to quote the standard


I didn't try, I actually did quote the standard.


Now. I did. You then copied it from my post, carefully leaving out those
parts, which you did not understand so you could not try to turn them inside
out to make them to look to support your braindead ideas. Like the part
which says that the return value of main is passed to the exit function
(taking an int argument).
in an attempt to pretend
you're right, I'll quote the standard to once and for all destory
all your arguements.


Oh, I'm so scared...


No. You are not. You don't have the brains for it.
C++ standard 3.6.1 Main function
Paragraph 5
"A return statement in main has the effect of leaving the main
function (destroying any objects with automatic storage duration)
and calling exit with the return value as the argument. If control
reaches the end of main without encountering a return statement, the
effect is that of executing return 0;"


Nothing there says anything about not being able to use void main()


Except that a void main cannot return 0.
and you haven't offered any explainantion why they would want to
contradict themselves by stating earlier that "other implementations"
of main() were allowed.
Because they also did state there that all of those "other implementations"
*must* have an int return value.
In addition to that, you also have not
offered any explanation of why would IBM, MS, and Borland agree with
my interpretation and not yours?
None of them does. The C++ liaison of Microsoft just have told you, that
accepting void main is a non-standard, standards conforming extension in
their compilers.
Once again, you are just another
example of an illiterate asshole
One more sentence like this and I will make your NSP cut you off the
internet. I promise. Believe me I know the way.
who doesn't have a clue.
Ah. Are you talking about yourself?
You are
going to need more than your big mouth and your little brain if you
want to offer an intelligent argument that will stand up to the
facts. Now go away with your tail tucked between your legs, and don't
come back until you get a clue.


You need urgent medical attention. The Sage. If you want war you will get
war. If you don't stop your nonsense here and you keep calling names I
will, I repeat, I will get your service provider get you off the internet.

--
Attila aka WW
Jul 19 '05 #10

P: n/a


The_Sage wrote:

offer an intelligent argument that will stand up to the facts. Now go away with
your tail tucked between your legs, and don't come back until you get a clue.


You are not in the position to tell anybody to 'go away'.
At least not in comp.lang.c++

But keep up the good work. I appriciate the way you
make a fool out of yourself.

--
Karl Heinz Buchegger
kb******@gascad.at
Jul 19 '05 #11

P: n/a
Attila Feher wrote:
The_Sage wrote:
Reply to article by: "Kwan Ting" <me@here.com>
Date written: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:53:32 +0100
MsgID:<wl******************@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>

If you the oh so mighty programmer that you pretend to be, why
don't you just write some? (And oh, void main is still not allow by
the C++ standard.)


I have, now it is your turn.

You did not.


Seeming as how you tried to quote the standard


I didn't try, I actually did quote the standard.

Now. I did.
Oh, I'm so scared...

No. You are not.
Once again, you are just another
example of an illiterate asshole

One more sentence like this and I will make your NSP cut you off the
internet. I promise. Believe me I know the way.

who doesn't have a clue.

Ah. Are you talking about yourself?

Now go away with your tail tucked between your legs, and don't
come back until you get a clue.

You need urgent medical attention. The Sage. If you want war you will get
war. If you don't stop your nonsense here and you keep calling names I
will, I repeat, I will get your service provider get you off the internet.

I don't think I could add anything to a thread that has reached such an
epitome of human intelegence. I don't think I have the kind of maturity
level necissary.

NR

Jul 19 '05 #12

P: n/a
WW
Noah Roberts wrote:
You need urgent medical attention. The Sage. If you want war you
will get war. If you don't stop your nonsense here and you keep
calling names I will, I repeat, I will get your service provider get
you off the internet.


I don't think I could add anything to a thread that has reached such
an epitome of human intelegence. I don't think I have the kind of
maturity level necissary.


Hey! Don't destroy my game!

--
WW aka Attila
Jul 19 '05 #13

P: n/a
>Reply to article by: Noah Roberts <nr******@dontemailme.com>
Date written: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 08:23:30 -0700
MsgID:<3F**************@dontemailme.com> I don't think I could add anything to a thread that has reached such an
epitome of human intelegence. I don't think I have the kind of maturity
level necissary.


You just proved yourself wrong.

The Sage

================================================== ===========
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
================================================== ===========
Jul 19 '05 #14

P: n/a
>Reply to article by: "Attila Feher" <at**********@lmf.ericsson.se>
Date written: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:27:22 +0300
MsgID:<bk**********@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se >
If you the oh so mighty programmer that you pretend to be, why
don't you just write some? (And oh, void main is still not allow by
the C++ standard.)
I have, now it is your turn. You did not. Now it is your turn.
That is childish.
Seeming as how you tried to quote the standard I didn't try, I actually did quote the standard. Now. I did. You then copied it from my post
The only place a quote from a standard could come from is from you? I don't
think so. And a quote is a quote is a quote and the quote says that "other types
may be implemented-defined". Can't get any clearer than that.

Grow up, please.
in an attempt to pretend
you're right, I'll quote the standard to once and for all destory
all your arguements. Oh, I'm so scared... No. You are not. You don't have the brains for it.
Oh, what a wondeful comeback. I'm still so scared. You are just too powerful for
us. Please don't hurt me anymore with your innuendo and name calling and blind
faith denial and dodge and evade tactics.

Again, grow up.
C++ standard 3.6.1 Main function
Paragraph 5
"A return statement in main has the effect of leaving the main
function (destroying any objects with automatic storage duration)
and calling exit with the return value as the argument. If control
reaches the end of main without encountering a return statement, the
effect is that of executing return 0;"

Nothing there says anything about not being able to use void main()

Except that a void main cannot return 0.


It does not say "void main cannot return 0". That is your interpretation and
only your interpretation. IBM, MS, and Borland all disagree with you but agree
with me. They all use void main(). Everyone who has ever used those compilers
knows that, so why don't you use one of those compilers and see what you've been
missing?

Here, let me help you embarrass yourself...

http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoyn...void-main.html

It's simple: You do not know what you are talking about. Come back when you can
be more civil and actually have some facts instead of childish banter.

The Sage

================================================== ===========
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
================================================== ===========
Jul 19 '05 #15

P: n/a
The_Sage wrote:
Here, let me help [me] embarrass [my]self...
I altered the wording a little to better express the situation :P

http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoyn...void-main.html

Have you read this link? Here is a nice little quote for yah (from the
above :P):

"The ISO C++ Standard (ISO/IEC 14882:1998) specifically requires main to
return int."

This website, which you have acklowledged as a source, directly
contradicts your point of view and confirms what everyone here has been
telling you.

I think I said this a long time ago...you are not very good at this are
you (unless you are trolling and then it is the best in a long time).

There are several reasons why you may have made this mistake:

* you don't know the difference between C and C++ and only halfway read
the above...
* you have no idea what the above site says and only saw "void main
~~~~~~ C++ ~~~~ is legal ~~~~~" (the ~ are ignored words :P)
* you have never read the above because you really DON'T know how to read
* feigning ignorance to get a rise out of people, excelent job.
* you really ARE that ignorant. (I rarely call people this even if they
are).

What I find rather interesting is that the same list that you said would
compile your broken code without error is the list of compilers that
accept void main for C on the above site.

Anyway, I am sure everyone can rest easily now that you have confirmed
our position with your own quotes in a way that is totally undeniable
and without margin for misinterpretation. Thank you.

Nothing to see here, move along...

NR

Jul 19 '05 #16

P: n/a
"The_Sage" <th******@azrmci.net> wrote in message
news:s4********************************@4ax.com...
C++ standard 3.6.1 Main function
Paragraph 5
"A return statement in main has the effect of leaving the main
function (destroying any objects with automatic storage duration)
and calling exit with the return value as the argument. If control
reaches the end of main without encountering a return statement, the
effect is that of executing return 0;" Nothing there says anything about not being able to use void main()
Except that a void main cannot return 0.


It does not say "void main cannot return 0". That is your interpretation

and only your interpretation. IBM, MS, and Borland all disagree with you but agree with me. They all use void main(). Everyone who has ever used those compilers knows that, so why don't you use one of those compilers and see what you've been missing?

Here, let me help you embarrass yourself...

http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoyn...void-main.html

OK, I read that page. Nowhere does it assert
that 'void' is a valid return type for the entry
point function 'main()' in a C++ program. If I
missed it, feel free to point it out.

You 'support' your assertion by citing material
which contradicts your assertion. Good job.

-Mike
Jul 19 '05 #17

P: n/a
WW
The_Sage wrote:
Reply to article by: Noah Roberts <nr******@dontemailme.com>
Date written: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 08:23:30 -0700
MsgID:<3F**************@dontemailme.com>

I don't think I could add anything to a thread that has reached such
an epitome of human intelegence. I don't think I have the kind of
maturity level necissary.


You just proved yourself wrong.


You have just been absolutely ridiculous.

--
WW aka Attila
Jul 19 '05 #18

P: n/a
WW
The_Sage wrote:
Reply to article by: "Attila Feher" <at**********@lmf.ericsson.se>
Date written: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:27:22 +0300
MsgID:<bk**********@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>
If you the oh so mighty programmer that you pretend to be, why
don't you just write some? (And oh, void main is still not allow by
the C++ standard.) I have, now it is your turn.
You did not. Now it is your turn.


That is childish.


I am happy you have discovered that you are childish.
Seeming as how you tried to quote the standard I didn't try, I actually did quote the standard.
Now. I did. You then copied it from my post


The only place a quote from a standard could come from is from you?


No. But the place a quote from the standard *came* in this case was me.
I don't think so.
Irrelevant.
And a quote is a quote is a quote and the quote says
that "other types may be implemented-defined".
No, it does not tell that. I have the standard in my hand.
Can't get any clearer than that.
Really. Could you tell me again (as you have implied that *you* have
quoted, which would be a lie) what section and under that what paragraph
numbers contain the requirements of the main function in a C++ program?
Come on! Faster!

My quote (carefully cut out by you) have also contained the part where the
standard talk about the *mandatory* use of the *integer* return value of
main. Which paragraph is that? You tried to say that you have the
standard. So come on, quote!
Grow up, please.
I have done that 20 years ago. Now it is your turn.
in an attempt to pretend
you're right, I'll quote the standard to once and for all destory
all your arguements. Oh, I'm so scared...
No. You are not. You don't have the brains for it.


Oh, what a wondeful comeback. I'm still so scared.


B/S.
You are just too powerful for us.
Please don't hurt me anymore with your innuendo and
name calling and blind faith denial and dodge and evade tactics.
Whooo. Did you write that alone, or mom was helping?
Again, grow up.
You cannot grow up twice.
C++ standard 3.6.1 Main function
Paragraph 5
"A return statement in main has the effect of leaving the main
function (destroying any objects with automatic storage duration)
and calling exit with the return value as the argument. If control
reaches the end of main without encountering a return statement,
the effect is that of executing return 0;" Nothing there says anything about not being able to use void main()

Except that a void main cannot return 0.


It does not say "void main cannot return 0".


It says main must return an integer.
That is your interpretation
No, that is the standard.
and only your interpretation.
And Microsofts, and IBMs' and Borlands and EDGs and Intels and SUNs and all
the compiler writers.
IBM, MS, and Borland all disagree with you but agree with me.
No, they don't. The representative of Microsoft has told you already that
Microsoft does not agree with you. Stop lieing.
They all use void main().
No. They all accept void main() as a backward compatibility for their
non-standard compilers from the past.
Everyone who has ever used those compilers knows that, so why don't
you use one of those compilers and see what you've been missing?
I don't need to. Compilers don't define the language. The standard does.
Here, let me help you embarrass yourself...
Thank you. I know you are a master of embarrassing yourself, but I am not
planning to do that.
http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoyn...void-main.html

A ridiculous page made by someone who cannot even create valid HTML is good
for a laugh, but it does not define the language. But I have to
congratulate you: you really know how to embarrass yourself. Good job.
It's simple: You do not know what you are talking about.
Sure. And you do. Except that so far the representative of Microsoft
proved you are wrong, Andy Koenig proved you are wrong and countless other
well-respected members of the C and C++ community did. You *are*
ridiculous.
Come back
when you can be more civil and actually have some facts instead of
childish banter.


Come back when you can be more civil and actually have some facts instead of
childish banter.

--
WW aka Attila
Jul 19 '05 #19

P: n/a
WW
Mike Wahler wrote:
OK, I read that page. Nowhere does it assert
that 'void' is a valid return type for the entry
point function 'main()' in a C++ program. If I
missed it, feel free to point it out.

You 'support' your assertion by citing material
which contradicts your assertion. Good job.


I missed that part. I looked at the list of links, none of which has
anything to do with the langauge definition... and dismissed it as
irrelevant. But as I looked at it better... it is quote the opposite than
The Troll whished for.

--
WW aka Attila
Jul 19 '05 #20

P: n/a
>Reply to article by: Noah Roberts <nr******@dontemailme.com>
Date written: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 19:08:01 -0700
MsgID:<3F**************@dontemailme.com>
http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoyn...void-main.html

Have you read this link? Here is a nice little quote for yah (from the
above :P): "The ISO C++ Standard (ISO/IEC 14882:1998) specifically requires main to
return int."


You C++ types aren't the brightest group on the web, are you? We have been
through this already. The ISO C++ Standard also says that you can optionally
return other types, ie -- int main() is one required type but void main() is
another, optional return type. It is "implementation-defined" as the actual
standard puts it. Notice how the above article goes on to list all the C++
compilers that allow void main(), such as IBM, MS, and Borland, yet they are all
ISO compliant.

The Sage

================================================== ===========
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
================================================== ===========
Jul 19 '05 #21

P: n/a
WW
The_Sage wrote:
Reply to article by: Noah Roberts <nr******@dontemailme.com>
Date written: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 19:08:01 -0700
MsgID:<3F**************@dontemailme.com>

http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoyn...void-main.html
Have you read this link? Here is a nice little quote for yah (from
the
above :P):
"The ISO C++ Standard (ISO/IEC 14882:1998) specifically requires
main to return int."


You C++ types aren't the brightest group on the web, are you? We have
been through this already.


Yes, and you have been porved wrong. You are not the brightest, are you?
The ISO C++ Standard also says that you
can optionally return other types, ie -- int main() is one required
type but void main() is another, optional return type.
No. It says main *must* have the int return type.
It is
"implementation-defined" as the actual standard puts it.
No. It is not. Neither the return type, nor the arguments taken are
implementation define by the standard.
Notice how
the above article goes on to list all the C++ compilers that allow
void main(), such as IBM, MS, and Borland, yet they are all ISO
compliant.


And yet, a C++ program code with void main in it is not ISO compliant.

You *are* boring now. Your resource are limited to lies, cutting out
relevant parts of the original message, name calling, listing some compiler
vendors who all disagree with you anyway - and some personal insults for the
end. It is all very predictable, and all boring.

--
WW aka Attila
Jul 19 '05 #22

P: n/a

"The_Sage" <th******@azrmci.net> wrote in message
news:ub********************************@4ax.com...
Reply to article by: Noah Roberts <nr******@dontemailme.com>
Date written: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 19:08:01 -0700
MsgID:<3F**************@dontemailme.com>
http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoyn...-void-main.htm

l
Have you read this link? Here is a nice little quote for yah (from the
above :P):
"The ISO C++ Standard (ISO/IEC 14882:1998) specifically requires main to
return int."


You C++ types aren't the brightest group on the web, are you? We have been
through this already. The ISO C++ Standard also says that you can

optionally return other types, ie -- int main() is one required type but void main() is another, optional return type.
Please cite 'chapter and verse' from ISO/IEC 14882:1998
that states this.
It is "implementation-defined" as the actual
standard puts it.
Chapter and verse please.
Notice how the above article goes on to list all the C++
compilers that allow void main(),
in C programs. Even if they allow it in C++ programs,
that proves nothing. Compilers do not define the language.
such as IBM, MS, and Borland, yet they are all
ISO compliant.


None of those are completely compliant with the C++ standard,
nor do they claim such.

-Mike
Jul 19 '05 #23

P: n/a

"WW" <wo***@freemail.hu> wrote in message
news:bl*********@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
Mike Wahler wrote:
OK, I read that page. Nowhere does it assert
that 'void' is a valid return type for the entry
point function 'main()' in a C++ program. If I
missed it, feel free to point it out.

You 'support' your assertion by citing material
which contradicts your assertion. Good job.
I missed that part.


Come on now, make sure your knife is sharp before
engaging the enemy. :-)
I looked at the list of links, none of which has
anything to do with the langauge definition... and dismissed it as
irrelevant. But as I looked at it better... it is quote the opposite than The Troll whished for.


I've found that this is often the case with trolls.
-Mike
Jul 19 '05 #24

P: n/a
Mike Wahler wrote:
"WW" <wo***@freemail.hu> wrote in message
news:bl*********@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
Mike Wahler wrote:
OK, I read that page. Nowhere does it assert
that 'void' is a valid return type for the entry
point function 'main()' in a C++ program. If I
missed it, feel free to point it out.

You 'support' your assertion by citing material
which contradicts your assertion. Good job.


I missed that part.


Come on now, make sure your knife is sharp before
engaging the enemy. :-)


Enemy? An enemy is someone to respect and someone worthy. The Sage is a
boring annoyment. First I thought he might be able to come up with new,
entertaining ways of making a fool of himself, but he is just repeating an
old, boring, broken record.
I looked at the list of links, none of which has
anything to do with the langauge definition... and dismissed it as
irrelevant. But as I looked at it better... it is quote the
opposite than The Troll whished for.


I've found that this is often the case with trolls.


I suspect there is a pattern with trolls. They have a huge public and
protected interface. (Flooding with junk and protecting their fallacies.)
But I have got the feeling that their private parts are small. So small
that it becomes negligable. I think that makes them so frustrated. :-)

--
Attila aka WW
Jul 19 '05 #25

P: n/a
The_Sage wrote:
Reply to article by: Noah Roberts <nr******@dontemailme.com>
Date written: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 19:08:01 -0700
MsgID:<3F**************@dontemailme.com>


http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoyn...void-main.html

Have you read this link? Here is a nice little quote for yah (from the
above :P):


"The ISO C++ Standard (ISO/IEC 14882:1998) specifically requires main to
return int."

You C++ types aren't the brightest group on the web, are you? We have been
through this already. The ISO C++ Standard also says that you can optionally
return other types, ie -- int main() is one required type but void main() is
another, optional return type. It is "implementation-defined" as the actual
standard puts it. Notice how the above article goes on to list all the C++
compilers that allow void main(), such as IBM, MS, and Borland, yet they are all
ISO compliant.


Read the link man, they are talking about C. C and C++ are not the same
thing. From your own source:

"void main() is not legal in C++ but is legal in C. "

Pay special attention to "void main() is not legal in C++"

To continue:

"The ISO C++ Standard (ISO/IEC 14882:1998) specifically requires main to
return int. But the ISO C Standard (ISO/IEC 9899:1999) actually does not. "

Of special importance to this subject is the text, "The ISO C++ Standard
.... requires main to return int."

Most C compilers also compile C++. Here is the part you seem to like to
flout like it confirms your position:

"Watcom C/C++. The *C* Library Reference for Watcom's *C* compiler says
that "the main function can be declared to return void"." [emphasis added]

Note that this entire page is about a different language than C++. But
to go on:

"Some compilers do not provide this loophole"

Also note that the author of the page wishes that the *C* standard was
changed so that void main could not be allowed. It is but an error in
grammar which allows it...

"Because of the semi-colon, its final sentence parses as follows: "

Also of note:

"However, Greg Comeau was shown this web page, and in response changed
the examples to use int main()."

Which is rather interesting since this page says that according to the C
standard void main is ok in that language. Apparently the author of
this website convinced Mr. Comeau that, though it is apparently legal,
nobody should use void main(). Apparently this, and the fact that they
speak of C and explicitly state that int is the only legal return type
in C++ according to the standard, was missed by you.

Most important in this whole fiasco is that you yourself provided the
source that has proven you wrong so doubtlessly. Even if you don't
believe the standard and wish to misconstrue its meaning, you apparently
believe this website which states beyond confusion:

"void main() is not legal in C++ ..."

Your position is hopelessly lost as you have cut your own throught.
Check and mate.

NR

Jul 19 '05 #26

P: n/a
Mike Wahler wrote:
Chapter and verse please.
You make it sound like you wish to hear a quote from the Bible :P
such as IBM, MS, and Borland, yet they are all
ISO compliant.

None of those are completely compliant with the C++ standard,
nor do they claim such.


It is my understanding that *no* compiler claims to be 100% standard
compliant. This of course would make it quite silly to base your
understanding of the standard on what a particular compiler will do.

NR

Jul 19 '05 #27

P: n/a
Mike Wahler wrote:
http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoyn...void-main.html

OK, I read that page. Nowhere does it assert
that 'void' is a valid return type for the entry
point function 'main()' in a C++ program. If I
missed it, feel free to point it out.


In fact it asserts quite the opposite. What a dumbass :P

NR

Jul 19 '05 #28

P: n/a
WW wrote:

http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoyn...void-main.html

A ridiculous page made by someone who cannot even create valid HTML is good
for a laugh, but it does not define the language.


Actually I read the page, it is a rather interesting read. The HTML is
definately broken but this in no way detracts from the content. The
author of this page claims that the *C* standard, through an apparant
grammatical error, allows return types for main other than int. This
page also *explicitly states* that there is no such error in the C++
standard and that int is the required return type of main in this
language.

"The ISO C++ Standard (ISO/IEC 14882:1998) specifically requires main to
return int. "

The author of this page is calling for a corrigendum (
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=corrigendum for those like me
who had to look it up :P ) which fixes this problem in the *C* standard.

"In my opinion, this is a defect in the C Standard that needs fixing
with a corrigendum. (I've written a proposed revised wording that such a
corrigendum could use.) It provides the authors of bad C programming
books with the very loophole that they have been needing for the past
decade or so. "

So, in short, they are not trying to redefine the language (actually
they are, to fix it as most C programmers understand it) nor is the
author making any assertation to support The_Sage's deranged ramblings.

NR

Jul 19 '05 #29

P: n/a

"Noah Roberts" <nr******@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:3F**************@dontemailme.com...
Mike Wahler wrote:
Chapter and verse please.


You make it sound like you wish to hear a quote from the Bible :P
such as IBM, MS, and Borland, yet they are all
ISO compliant.

None of those are completely compliant with the C++ standard,
nor do they claim such.


It is my understanding that *no* compiler claims to be 100% standard
compliant.


AFAIK Comeau does, or claims to come extremely close.
See www.comeaucomputing.com for details.

-Mike
Jul 19 '05 #30

P: n/a
Noah Roberts wrote:
Mike Wahler wrote:
Chapter and verse please.


You make it sound like you wish to hear a quote from the Bible :P


That is the idea. It is a joke.
such as IBM, MS, and Borland, yet they are all
ISO compliant.


None of those are completely compliant with the C++ standard,
nor do they claim such.


It is my understanding that *no* compiler claims to be 100% standard
compliant.


Not true. Comeau(*) does claim. And it is, unless someone finds a bug.

(*) http://www.comeaucomputing.com

Good site, look at it.

--
Attila aka WW
Jul 19 '05 #31

P: n/a
Noah Roberts wrote:
WW wrote:

http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoyn...void-main.html
A ridiculous page made by someone who cannot even create valid HTML
is good for a laugh, but it does not define the language.
Actually I read the page, it is a rather interesting read. The HTML
is definately broken but this in no way detracts from the content.
The author of this page claims that the *C* standard, through an
apparant grammatical error, allows return types for main other than
int.


The page must be old. It is no grammatical error that C99 goes into
detailed description of what will the exit statust returned to the system
afer execution of a program where the return type of main is nto int and is
not compatibel with int.
The author of this page is calling for a corrigendum (
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=corrigendum for those like me
who had to look it up :P ) which fixes this problem in the *C*
standard.
It did not happen.
"In my opinion, this is a defect in the C Standard that needs fixing
with a corrigendum. (I've written a proposed revised wording that
such a corrigendum could use.) It provides the authors of bad C
programming books with the very loophole that they have been needing
for the past decade or so. "
Yeah. First I have only browsed through the links given there since those
were what The Rage wanted to present as "as proof". Then I took a quick
look at the HTML because it looked suspicious. Now I think it is old. From
well before 99.
So, in short, they are not trying to redefine the language (actually
they are, to fix it as most C programmers understand it) nor is the
author making any assertation to support The_Sage's deranged
ramblings.


Actually C99 does explicitly allow other return types than int. That is the
way they have chosen to go.

--
Attila aka WW
Jul 19 '05 #32

P: n/a
Noah Roberts wrote:
[SNIP]
Read the link man, they are talking about C. C and C++ are not the
same thing. From your own source:

"void main() is not legal in C++ but is legal in C. "

Pay special attention to "void main() is not legal in C++"


Yep. And it is so legal, that the *C99* standard goes into describing hwo
the program behaves if the return type of main is not compatible with int.
And this part is appartently missing from the C++ standard, showing it
pretty much clear that the intent was not to allow it.

--
Attila aka WW
Jul 19 '05 #33

P: n/a
The_Sage <th******@azrmci.net> wrote in message news:<0k********************************@4ax.com>. ..
The Sage wrote:
Oh, I'm so scared... [snip] just another example of an illiterate asshole who doesn't have a clue. You are [snip] The Sage


I will cote The Sage the same way he coted the Standard: leaving the
parts that don't suit his need:
"I'm... an illeterate asshole who doesn't have a clue... The Sage"

Gegards,

Marcelo Pinto
Jul 19 '05 #34

P: n/a

"The_Sage" wrote

http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoyn...void-main.html


ooh, can't find any more thing to misinterpert in the standard and we're
quoting website now are we?
Nice..... how about something from the website of the person who created!
C++. (FYI Sage, coz I don't think you read much to know about these basic
stuff, that person is Bjarne Stroustrup)

http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html#void-main

"The definition
void main() { /* ... */ }
is not and never has been C++ .... "

"A conforming implementation may provide more versions of main() ( on top of
int main() & int main(int argc, char* argv[]) ), but they must all have
return type int."

BTW, that last sentence refers to that part of the standard that you keep
returning to to try and misinterpert to "prove" that you're right. What the
"implementation-defined" part actually says is that a compiler can be
implemented so to accept different arguements on top of
1) no arguement
2) int argc, char* argv[] .

Just to remind you (or to teach you), coz you don't seems to show ANY
understanding of C++. Apart from the special fact that it's the program
entry point for hosted console program, main() is a FUNCTION like all the
other function one might write. A function whose return type have been
declared void CANNOT return ANY value. When the standard says that a return
of 0 is assumed if no return value is specific by the programmer, it very
well ruled out void main() as being value.

Over and out :-)

Kwan Ting
--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
Jul 19 '05 #35

P: n/a
"The_Sage" wrote:
You C++ types aren't the brightest group on the web, are you?


However, I have carefully researched this issue, for many, years, and I have
come to the conclusion that one should not use void main, and should prefer
int main, for a number of valid technical reasons.

Void main:

* causes illiteracy in lab mice
* inspires television networks to move reality shows to the next logical
step: Human sacrifice
* will transmit the contents of your internet cache folders to the nearest
repressed fundamentalist priest
* will precipitate the return of the Joe Isuzu commercials (1999/11/20)
* causes destructive thread recidivism in technical newsgroups
* will attract biker gangs to your granma's neighborhood
* is a capitalist plot
* nutates the precession of the equinoxes
* has designs on your kid sister
* makes killer bees think you smell like Chanel No. 5
* inspires white supremacists to come "out" about their thing for Reggae
music
* will inspire mass media to get over this current cheerleader thing
* denies workers control over the means of production
* relaxes the prohibitions against split infinitives (1999/04/24)
* is caused by orbiting microwave platforms that target the thermal
resonance signature of your neurons
* makes Disney executives have vivid anxiety dreams about not litigating
enough
* makes folks >still< think alien beings make crop circles
* uses NFL broadcasts without the expressed written consent of Fox Network
* will make your loved ones think you have been possessed by aliens
* will make you blind, grow hair on your palms, and convince you to vote
Republican
* increases the chances air traffic controllers accidentally cross flight
corridors directly over your house
* makes street lunatics think you are part of the conspiracy against them
* points the Hubble Space Telescope at your house
* makes IBM think they have a prayer of solving the Protein Folding Problem
in less time than the Sun takes to burn out
* makes George Lucas think we can tell the difference between any of his
StarWars movies
* makes your balls drop off
* inspires a remote tribe in Borneo to carve big wooden statues that look
just like you
* causes Phlip's big toe to swell up like a balloon
* inspires Hollywood executives to sign off on yet another insipid
live-action remake of an insipid 1970s cartoon
* has been cruely tested on charismatic dolphins and adorable baby seals
* has already caused the return of Joe Isuzu, as I prophesied on this
newsgroup last year (2001/04/04)

--
Phlip
Jul 19 '05 #36

P: n/a
WW
Phlip wrote:
"The_Sage" wrote:
You C++ types aren't the brightest group on the web, are you?


However, I have carefully researched this issue, for many, years, and
I have come to the conclusion that one should not use void main, and
should prefer int main, for a number of valid technical reasons.

Void main:

* causes illiteracy in lab mice

[SNIP]

Did you want to say that not only main is void in this topic? :-)

--
WW aka Attila
Jul 19 '05 #37

P: n/a
Kwan Ting wrote:
The_Sage, I see you've gotten yourself a twin asking for program in
comp.lang.c++ .
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl...c71c33c&rnum=1
If you the oh so mighty programmer that you pretend to be, why don't you
just write some? (And oh, void main is still not allow by the C++ standard.)


Won't you folks all just *plonk* this loser already?

--
Mike Smith

Jul 19 '05 #38

P: n/a
WW
Mike Smith wrote:
Kwan Ting wrote:

[SNIP]
If you the oh so mighty programmer that you pretend to be, why
don't you
just write some? (And oh, void main is still not allow by the C++
standard.)


Won't you folks all just *plonk* this loser already?


No. I want to see him quote from Chapter 28 of the C++ standard. Then I
will use him to practice my willpower. Whatever b/s he presents, however
abusive he will be - I will simply ignore him. I make lemonade from the
lemon. Once I have seen him quote Chapter 28. ;-)

--
WW aka Attila
Jul 19 '05 #39

P: n/a
The_Sage wrote:


It does not say "void main cannot return 0". That is your interpretation and
only your interpretation. IBM, MS, and Borland all disagree with you but agree
with me. They all use void main(). Everyone who has ever used those compilers
knows that, so why don't you use one of those compilers and see what you've been
missing?

Here, let me help you embarrass yourself...

http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoyn...void-main.html

It's simple: You do not know what you are talking about. Come back when you can
be more civil and actually have some facts instead of childish banter.

The Sage

The site you link to says at the top:

void main() is not legal in C++ but is legal in C.
Below this it says:

The ISO C++ Standard (ISO/IEC 14882:1998) specifically requires main to
return int. But the ISO C Standard (ISO/IEC 9899:1999) actually does
not. This comes as a surprise to many people. But despite what many
documents say, including the Usenet comp.lang.c FAQ document (at great
length), the actual text of the C Standard allows for main returning
other types.

Please note the first sentence:
The ISO C++ Standard (ISO/IEC 14882:1998) specifically requires main to
return int.

The Microsoft site at:
http://msdn.microsoft.com./library/d...n_function.asp

says:
Alternatively, the main and wmain functions can be declared as returning
void (no return value). If you declare main or wmain as returning void,
you cannot return an exit code to the parent process or operating system
using a return statement; to return an exit code when main or wmain are
declared as void, you must use the exit function.

But it does not say that this function is compliant to the standard.

The link for comeau C++ at :
http://www.comeaucomputing.com./4.0/...n/cpplang.html
is from 1997 and talks about the working papers not the final standard.

Digital mars does not say anywhere that I could find that it is
compliant to the standard. The examples are for dos and Windows 3.1.

At this point I think your site needs to be updated. It is not
accurate. If this is your only base for your argument I suggest a new base.

Jul 19 '05 #40

P: n/a
Mike Smith wrote:


Won't you folks all just *plonk* this loser already?


What is *plonk*?

Jul 19 '05 #41

P: n/a
"SomeDumbGuy" <ab***@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:hE****************@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Mike Smith wrote:


Won't you folks all just *plonk* this loser already?


What is *plonk*?


What is google?

http://www.faqs.org/docs/jargon/P/plonk.html

I suppose you are posting with the proper handle. :-)

-Mike
Jul 19 '05 #42

P: n/a

"Mike Smith" wrote .)

Won't you folks all just *plonk* this loser already?


I actually did :-D Something came across my mind one day and I couldn't
resist posting something :-D
At least I did name the Subject such that people don't have to read it if
they didn't want to :-)

Kwan Ting
--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
Jul 19 '05 #43

P: n/a
ROFLMAO

Nice research mate :-D
Jul 19 '05 #44

P: n/a
In article <3F**************@dontemailme.com>,
Noah Roberts <nr******@dontemailme.com> wrote:
The_Sage wrote:
Reply to article by: Noah Roberts <nr******@dontemailme.com>
http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoyn...void-main.html

Have you read this link? Here is a nice little quote for yah (from the
above :P):

"The ISO C++ Standard (ISO/IEC 14882:1998) specifically requires main to
return int."


You C++ types aren't the brightest group on the web, are you? We have been
through this already. The ISO C++ Standard also says that you can optionally
return other types, ie -- int main() is one required type but void main() is
another, optional return type. It is "implementation-defined" as the actual
standard puts it. Notice how the above article goes on to list all the C++
compilers that allow void main(), such as IBM, MS, and Borland, yet they
are all ISO compliant.


Read the link man, they are talking about C. C and C++ are not the same
thing. From your own source:

"void main() is not legal in C++ but is legal in C. "

Pay special attention to "void main() is not legal in C++"

To continue:

"The ISO C++ Standard (ISO/IEC 14882:1998) specifically requires main to
return int. But the ISO C Standard (ISO/IEC 9899:1999) actually does not. "

Of special importance to this subject is the text, "The ISO C++ Standard
... requires main to return int."

Most C compilers also compile C++. Here is the part you seem to like to
flout like it confirms your position:

"Watcom C/C++. The *C* Library Reference for Watcom's *C* compiler says
that "the main function can be declared to return void"." [emphasis added]

Note that this entire page is about a different language than C++. But
to go on:

"Some compilers do not provide this loophole"

Also note that the author of the page wishes that the *C* standard was
changed so that void main could not be allowed. It is but an error in
grammar which allows it...

"Because of the semi-colon, its final sentence parses as follows: "

Also of note:

"However, Greg Comeau was shown this web page, and in response changed
the examples to use int main()."

Which is rather interesting since this page says that according to the C
standard void main is ok in that language. Apparently the author of
this website convinced Mr. Comeau that, though it is apparently legal,
nobody should use void main(). Apparently this, and the fact that they
speak of C and explicitly state that int is the only legal return type
in C++ according to the standard, was missed by you.

Most important in this whole fiasco is that you yourself provided the
source that has proven you wrong so doubtlessly. Even if you don't
believe the standard and wish to misconstrue its meaning, you apparently
believe this website which states beyond confusion:

"void main() is not legal in C++ ..."

Your position is hopelessly lost as you have cut your own throught.
Check and mate.


I am jumping into this thread mis-stream since there is a reference
to something I did or said. I have to say that AT BEST the
legality-of-void-main.html webpage is apparently characterizing
something I did out of context, and so I can pretty much say
any reference to me is ridiculous.

Second, all references to all vendors on that URL are misleading,
since it does not say what the void main being acceptable by those
compilers means. For instance, say in non-strict C++ mode,
Comeau C/C++ accepts void main. But saying that doesn't really
say what it does in strict mode.

Third, I have to confess to not looking up the respective rules
for "void main" in some times, and I'm not going to now,
but from a quick skim of legality-of-void-main.html webpage,
I don't think I agree with it. As I recall it though,
if we're talking about "strictly conforming" then C++ and C99
requires a diagnostic, whereas C90 doesn't. As is often the case,
concluding this probably requires referring to multiple sections.
--
Greg Comeau/4.3.3:Full C++03 core language + more Windows backends
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?
Jul 19 '05 #45

P: n/a
>Reply to article by: "WW" <wo***@freemail.hu>
Date written: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:57:03 +0300
MsgID:<bl**********@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi> http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoyn...void-main.html
Have you read this link? Here is a nice little quote for yah (from
the above :P): "The ISO C++ Standard (ISO/IEC 14882:1998) specifically requires
main to return int."
You C++ types aren't the brightest group on the web, are you? We have
been through this already.

Yes, and you have been porved wrong. You are not the brightest, are you?


Hehe! Thank you for proving my point about how people like you aren't the
brightest guys on the web. Let me reiterate the part you haven't read and
therefore have yet to refute in an intelligent or factual manner...

From the ISO standard:
"3.6.1 Main function paragraph 2:
It shall have a return type of type int..."

Which all ISO compilers like MS, Borland, and IBM do.

"...but otherwise..."

See that word? It means that the standard allows breathing room for other return
types IN ADDITION TO int main().

"...its type is implementation-defined"

Therefore, any compiler that implement-defines other types of main() functions,
in addition to int main(), types like void main() for example, are ISO
compliant, hence since MS, Borland, and IBM use int main() AND ALSO
IMPLEMENT/DEFINE void main(), they are therefore also ISO compliant.

I have yet to be proved wrong -- care to give it try yourself? Stop your yapping
and let's see what you are really made of.

The Sage

================================================== ===========
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
================================================== ===========
Jul 19 '05 #46

P: n/a
>Reply to article by: Noah Roberts <nr******@dontemailme.com>
Date written: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:30:16 -0700
MsgID:<3F**************@dontemailme.com>
http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoyn...void-main.html Have you read this link? Here is a nice little quote for yah (from the
above :P): "The ISO C++ Standard (ISO/IEC 14882:1998) specifically requires main to
return int."
You C++ types aren't the brightest group on the web, are you? We have been
through this already. The ISO C++ Standard also says that you can optionally
return other types, ie -- int main() is one required type but void main() is
another, optional return type. It is "implementation-defined" as the actual
standard puts it. Notice how the above article goes on to list all the C++
compilers that allow void main(), such as IBM, MS, and Borland, yet they are all
ISO compliant.

Read the link man, they are talking about C. C and C++ are not the same
thing. From your own source:


No, they were talking about both. Do a word search.

The Sage

================================================== ===========
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
================================================== ===========
Jul 19 '05 #47

P: n/a
>Reply to article by: "Phlip" <ph*******@yahoo.com>
Date written: 26 Sep 2003 14:56:51 GMT
MsgID:<bl********@dispatch.concentric.net>
Haha! I'm glad to see that someone around here is intelligent enough to have a
sense of humor! Thanks for reminding us that there is nothing about the topic of
void main() vs int main() that is worth taking very seriously.
You C++ types aren't the brightest group on the web, are you?

However, I have carefully researched this issue, for many, years, and I have
come to the conclusion that one should not use void main, and should prefer
int main, for a number of valid technical reasons. Void main: * causes illiteracy in lab mice
* inspires television networks to move reality shows to the next logical
step: Human sacrifice
* will transmit the contents of your internet cache folders to the nearest
repressed fundamentalist priest
* will precipitate the return of the Joe Isuzu commercials (1999/11/20)
* causes destructive thread recidivism in technical newsgroups
* will attract biker gangs to your granma's neighborhood
* is a capitalist plot
* nutates the precession of the equinoxes
* has designs on your kid sister
* makes killer bees think you smell like Chanel No. 5
* inspires white supremacists to come "out" about their thing for Reggae
music
* will inspire mass media to get over this current cheerleader thing
* denies workers control over the means of production
* relaxes the prohibitions against split infinitives (1999/04/24)
* is caused by orbiting microwave platforms that target the thermal
resonance signature of your neurons
* makes Disney executives have vivid anxiety dreams about not litigating
enough
* makes folks >still< think alien beings make crop circles
* uses NFL broadcasts without the expressed written consent of Fox Network
* will make your loved ones think you have been possessed by aliens
* will make you blind, grow hair on your palms, and convince you to vote
Republican
* increases the chances air traffic controllers accidentally cross flight
corridors directly over your house
* makes street lunatics think you are part of the conspiracy against them
* points the Hubble Space Telescope at your house
* makes IBM think they have a prayer of solving the Protein Folding Problem
in less time than the Sun takes to burn out
* makes George Lucas think we can tell the difference between any of his
StarWars movies
* makes your balls drop off
* inspires a remote tribe in Borneo to carve big wooden statues that look
just like you
* causes Phlip's big toe to swell up like a balloon
* inspires Hollywood executives to sign off on yet another insipid
live-action remake of an insipid 1970s cartoon
* has been cruely tested on charismatic dolphins and adorable baby seals
* has already caused the return of Joe Isuzu, as I prophesied on this
newsgroup last year (2001/04/04)


The Sage

================================================== ===========
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
================================================== ===========
Jul 19 '05 #48

P: n/a

"SomeDumbGuy" <ab***@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:uz******************@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...

void main() is not legal in C++ but is legal in C.

I hope you're not expecting him to know C any better than C++.
He steadfastly claims that the following is C code (in fact, it is high-level
assembly code, but he has gone on record about a dozen times swearing
that it is a C program; we're not talking about misplaced semicolons here
folks...)

program regexp;
#include( "stdlib.hhf" )
const
MaxLines := 100;

static
f :dword;
i :uns32;
filename :string;
lineCnt :uns32;
areaCode :str.strvar(16);
prefix :str.strvar(16);
suffix :str.strvar(16);
lines :string[ MaxLines ];

begin regexp;

if( arg.c() != 2 ) then

stdout.put( "Usage: regexp <filename>" nl );
exit regexp;

endif;
mov( fileio.open( arg.v( 1 ), fileio.r ), f );
mov( 0, ebx );
while( !fileio.eof( f )) do

fileio.a_gets( f );
mov( eax, lines[ ebx*4 ] );
inc( ebx );

endwhile;
mov( ebx, lineCnt );
fileio.close( f );
for( mov( 0, i ); mov( i, edx ) < lineCnt; inc( i )) do

pat.match( lines[ edx*4 ] );

pat.zeroOrMoreCset( -{ '(','0'..'9' } );
pat.zeroOrOneChar( '(' );
pat.exactlyNCset( {'0'..'9'}, 3 );
pat.extract( areaCode );
pat.zeroOrOneChar( ')' );
pat.zeroOrMoreWS();
pat.exactlyNCset( {'0'..'9'}, 3 );
pat.extract( prefix );
pat.oneOrMoreCset( {'-', ' '} );
pat.exactlyNCset( {'0'..'9'}, 4 );
pat.extract( suffix );

stdout.put( i:2,": (", areaCode, ") ", prefix, '-', suffix, nl );

pat.if_failure;

pat.endmatch;

endfor;

end regexp;

Jul 19 '05 #49

P: n/a
The_Sage wrote:
Reply to article by: Noah Roberts <nr******@dontemailme.com>
Date written: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:30:16 -0700
MsgID:<3F**************@dontemailme.com>


>http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoyn...void-main.html
Read the link man, they are talking about C. C and C++ are not the same
thing. From your own source:

No, they were talking about both. Do a word search.


A word search does not work, you must *read* the site.

NR

Jul 19 '05 #50

192 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.