home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: solon.com!not-for-mail
- From: seebs@solutions.solon.com (Peter Seebach)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
- Subject: Re: Schildt <- Advanced Books
- Date: 9 Mar 1996 12:48:46 -0600
- Organization: Usenet Fact Police (Undercover)
- Message-ID: <4hsjqe$b91@solutions.solon.com>
- References: <8BA8405.02C70020DE.uuout@sourcebbs.com> <4hmojk$ij2@news.interpath.net> <4hmqqe$aoo@solutions.solon.com> <3140BAC7.7608@oc.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: solutions.solon.com
-
- In article <3140BAC7.7608@oc.com>, Larry Weiss <lfw@oc.com> wrote:
- >Peter Seebach wrote:
- > > Schildt sent me a fax explaining why he believes void main is legal by the
- > > standard; I wrote back, but haven't heard anything about it since...
-
- >What was the gist of Schildt's argument justifying void main() ?
-
- I don't have it with me, but basically, his claim was based on the fact
- that there was no explicit prohibition, and that it says main is declared
- with no prototype. He mentioned testing it on Borland and Microsoft
- compilers, and was surprised that Borland gave the warning with -A on.
-
- I wrote back quoting the section which says it is undefined if there is no
- explicit definition, and haven't heard from either him or the publisher
- since.
-
- Disappointing; I could use the money, and they could use the editing.
-
- -s
- --
- Peter Seebach - seebs@solon.com - Copyright 1996 Peter Seebach.
- C/Unix wizard -- C/Unix questions? Send mail for help. No, really!
- FUCK the communications decency act. Goddamned government. [literally.]
- The *other* C FAQ - http://www.solon.com/~seebs/c/c-iaq.html
-