Re: The thorny issue of main's return type (WAS: Top ten errors)

From: Anand Hariharan (ROT13qrfu_onxguROT13_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/22/03 

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:03:14 -0600

"Josh Sebastian" <curien@cox.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.11.22.16.20.38.540843@cox.net...
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:16:16 -0800, Anand Hariharan wrote:
> > Josh Sebastian <curien@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.11.20.18.25.29.849235@cox.net>...
> >
> Generally, we treat a given question as "all about C" or "all about C++",
> as often giving answers for both languages is very time consuming,
> long-winded, and/or ambiguous.
>

I've noticed you request new posters to indicate as such in the subject of
their posts.

> >
> > This is, however, digressive from what I am trying to understand, viz.,
> > why does "void main" *IRK* a good C or C++ programmer, while other
> > instances of undefined behaviour are more easily taken in stride.
>
> - It's such an easy thing to get right.
> - Most people's excuse is, "It doesn't really matter."
>
> That irks people who spend a lot of time trying very hard to make their
> programs conform to the Standard. IOW, it's not so much the error that
> irks us as the attitude of those /justifying/ the error.
>
> Josh

Point taken.

thank you for your observations,
- Anand

Relevant Pages

  • Re: a turbo assembly language
    ... >>that ASM is no more time consuming than an HLL. ... >>programmed in both languages can see that is a clearly ridiculous ... At my workplace. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: a turbo assembly language
    ... > that ASM is no more time consuming than an HLL. ... > programmed in both languages can see that is a clearly ridiculous ...
    (alt.lang.asm)