home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM!taumet!clamage
- From: JdeBP@jba.co.uk (Jonathan de Boyne Pollard)
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
- Subject: Re: Are all Windows programs ill-formed?
- Date: 1 Feb 1996 22:45:37 GMT
- Organization: JBA Software Products, Studley, England.
- Approved: clamage@eng.sun.com (comp.std.c++)
- Message-ID: <4eq3he$fkq@silver.jba.co.uk>
- References: <AE5J83na99@qsar.chem.msu.su>
- Reply-To: JdeBP@donor2.demon.co.uk
- NNTP-Posting-Host: taumet.eng.sun.com
- Content-Type: text
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
- Content-Length: 796
- Originator: clamage@taumet
-
- Eugene Radchenko (eugene@qsar.chem.msu.su) wrote:
- | Maybe the requirements on the main() should be relaxed somehow?
-
- A while back I submitted several proposals to clean up [basic.start.main],
- and one of the points that I addressed was implementations that gave `main'
- a different function signature.
-
- Under my proposal, the set of function signatures that `main' could have
- would be implementation defined (with the restriction that `int main()' and
- `int main(int, char **)' be part of that set). This would allow
- implementations to define
-
- int main(HINSTANCE, HINSTANCE, LPSTR, int)
-
- as an acceptable signature for `main', should they so wish.
-
- ( The current wording of [basic.start.main] is both self-contradictory
- and ambiguous in this respect. See the proposal for full details. )
-
- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
- Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu. The moderation policy is
- summarized in http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html
- ]
-