The_Sage & void main()

[WW]

Re: The_Sage & void main()

You still did not answer the question! Read and tell what Chapter 28 of the
C++ standard says about the main function. If you don't, we will all know
you are a clueless idiot - to use your words.

--
WW aka Attila

[WW]

Re: [OT]The_Sage & void main()

The_Sage wrote:[color=blue]
> I see you don't know how to use a word search. Heck, even the title
> tells you that they are talking about C and C++, ie -- "VOID MAIN()
> IS NOT LEGAL IN C++ BUT IS LEGAL IN C". Funny how you missed that.
> Then they listed all the C and C++ compilers that used void main() in[/color]
[SNIP]

This newsgroup is about the C++ language, as defined by its international
standard. If you whish to discuss the C language, you will need to post to
some other newsgroup:

http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/how-to-post.html#faq-5.9

--
WW aka Attila

[Kwan Ting]

Re: The_Sage & void main()

Oh where art thous our lovely Sage :-D

Why don't you reply to what I posted? You can't dispute what the creator of
the language say ? Or is it that you can't think up another one of your lame
excuse ...

Kwan Ting
--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine

[Kwan Ting]

Re: The_Sage & void main()


"The_Sage" wrote[color=blue]
> I see you don't know how to use a word search. Heck, even the title tells[/color]
you[color=blue]
> that they are talking about C and C++, ie -- "VOID MAIN() IS NOT LEGAL IN[/color]
C++[color=blue]
> BUT IS LEGAL IN C". Funny how you missed that. Then they listed all the C[/color]
and

No, the real funny thing is how you can't read what yourself is posting!
Now, which bit of "VOID MAIN() IS NOT LEGAL IN C++" don't you understand ???

/me love how our lovely troll is way beyond any help anyone can give :D

Kwan Ting
--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine

[Greg Comeau]

Re: The_Sage & void main()

In article <tosbnvc7vve515 e8n5mbhcqj54enr 5r2lv@4ax.com>,
The_Sage <theeSage@azrmc i.net> wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>>Reply to article by: "WW" <wolof@freemail .hu>
>>Date written: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:59:31 +0300
>>MsgID:<bl3n24 $hmf$1@phys-news1.kolumbus. fi>[/color]
>[color=green]
>>No it says (as one f*cking sentence):[/color]
>[color=green]
>>"It shall have a return type of type int but otherwise its type is
>>implementatio n-defined."[/color]
>
>Uh, duh!
>[color=green]
>>The same written in C++:[/color]
>[color=green]
>>int main(herecanbea nything);[/color]
>[color=green]
>>That is what it means, brainless The Sage.[/color]
>
>Bwahaha! The subject is RETURN TYPE, not PARAMETERS. NO MENTION WAS MADE IN THAT
>ONE F*CKING SENTENCE ABOUT PARAMETERS.
>
>Thank you for giving me the oppotunity to irrefutably prove what a total idiot
>you are.[/color]

There WAS a mention about parameters. There IS a difference between:

"It shall have a return type of type int but otherwise its type is
implementation-defined."

and

"It shall have a return type of type int but otherwise its RETURN
type is implementation-defined."

Unfortunately, the "legalese" nature could have been lessened
if "main()s" instead of "its" or something was used, though
the meaning is still clear and unambiguous in this case.
--
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?

[Greg Comeau]

Re: The_Sage &amp; void main()

In article <btsbnvk4f4seov k8p3q5rsqotkij3 tiiej@4ax.com>,
The_Sage <theeSage@azrmc i.net> wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>>Reply to article by: Noah Roberts <nroberts@donte mailme.com>[color=darkred]
>>>>>>>http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoyn...void-main.html[/color][/color]
>...
>.... listed all the C and
>C++ compilers that used void main() in BOTH C and C++. In fact, if you could
>learn to click on the link they gave to Microsoft, you would see where
>Microsofts online documenation for their C++ compiler uses void main().[/color]

Yes, but the problem is that you have to also define the
context of such uses, as I clearly explained in another message.
For instance, with Comeau C++, if I have:

//voidmain.cpp, this is supposed to be Standard C++ code
void main()
{
}

and compile it in non-strict mode, then it compiles with
a warning, which can be turned off, both of which is allowed.

E:\tmp>como voidmain.cpp
Comeau C/C++ 4.3.3 (Sep 23 2003 11:25:46) for _MS_WINDOWS_x86 _Beta9
Copyright 1988-2003 Comeau Computing. All rights reserved.
MODE:non-strict warnings microsoft C++

"voidmain.c pp", line 1: warning: return type of function "main" must be "int"
void main()
^

However, if I compile it in Comeau strict mode, then it gives:

E:\tmp>como --A voidmain.cpp
Comeau C/C++ 4.3.3 (Sep 23 2003 11:25:46) for _MS_WINDOWS_x86 _Beta9
Copyright 1988-2003 Comeau Computing. All rights reserved.
MODE:strict errors C++

"voidmain.c pp", line 1: error: return type of function "main" must be "int"
void main()
^

1 error detected in the compilation of "voidmain.c pp".

Similarly, if I compiler with VC++ in non-strict mode:

E:\tmp>cl voidmain.cpp
Microsoft (R) 32-bit C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 13.10.3077 for 80x86
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation 1984-2002. All rights reserved.

voidmain.cpp
Microsoft (R) Incremental Linker Version 7.10.3077
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

/out:voidmain.ex e
voidmain.obj

However, if I compile it in strict C++ mode, it gives:

E:\tmp>cl /Za voidmain.cpp
Microsoft (R) 32-bit C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 13.10.3077 for 80x86
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation 1984-2002. All rights reserved.

voidmain.cpp
voidmain.cpp(2) : warning C4326: return type of 'main' should be 'int' instead o
f 'void'
Microsoft (R) Incremental Linker Version 7.10.3077
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

/out:voidmain.ex e
voidmain.obj

which, although it is labelled "warning" actually meets the
requirements of Standard C++ regarding diagnostics.

Note as well that some standards allow for invalid input
to still render to an executable. That moves into something
else though.

So to say that a vendor allows something or other really
needs to be put into context. So, when you point out that
say MS documentation uses void main(), and I'm sure it does,
since I've seen it, you're referring to their non-strict mode.
--
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?

[Noah Roberts]

Re: The_Sage &amp; void main()

WW wrote:[color=blue]
> The_Sage wrote:[/color]

[ Who the fuck cares? ]
[color=blue]
> No it says (as one f*cking sentence):
>
> "It shall have a return type of type int but otherwise its type is
> implementation-defined."
>
> The same written in C++:
>
> int main(herecanbea nything);[/color]

An interesting aside I just thought of: If the rest of main's signature
is implementation defined, I wonder what the standard has to say on this
one:

int main(stuff) const;

NR

[Noah Roberts]

Re: The_Sage &amp; void main()

The_Sage wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>No, they were talking about both. Do a word search.[/color][/color]
>
>[color=green]
>>A word search does not work, you must *read* the site.[/color]
>
>
> I see you don't know how to use a word search. Heck, even the title tells you
> that they are talking about C and C++, ie -- "VOID MAIN() IS NOT LEGAL IN C++
> BUT IS LEGAL IN C". Funny how you missed that. Then they listed all the C and
> C++ compilers that used void main() in BOTH C and C++. In fact, if you could
> learn to click on the link they gave to Microsoft, you would see where
> Microsofts online documenation for their C++ compiler uses void main().
>
> DUH![/color]

This guy has to be pulling our legs. Noone that is as ignorant as ^that
could survive outside of a lab environment. He's trolling and we all
fell for it. It has been fun, but I am done :P

NR

[Greg Comeau]

Re: The_Sage &amp; void main()

In article <bl5cic$6p$2@qu ark.scn.rain.co m>,
Noah Roberts <nroberts@donte mailme.com> wrote:[color=blue]
>WW wrote:[color=green]
>> The_Sage wrote:[/color]
>
>[ Who the fuck cares? ]
>[color=green]
>> No it says (as one f*cking sentence):
>>
>> "It shall have a return type of type int but otherwise its type is
>> implementation-defined."
>>
>> The same written in C++:
>>
>> int main(herecanbea nything);[/color]
>
>An interesting aside I just thought of: If the rest of main's signature
>is implementation defined, I wonder what the standard has to say on this
>one:
>
>int main(stuff) const;[/color]

If I recall, implementation-defined has a well-formed
characteristic, so this would seem a no-go.
--
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?

[Mike Wahler]

Re: [OT] The_Sage &amp; void main()

"Noah Roberts" <nroberts@donte mailme.com> wrote in message
news:bl5cs2$1ra $1@quark.scn.ra in.com...
[color=blue]
> This guy has to be pulling our legs. Noone that is as ignorant as ^that >[/color]
could survive outside of a lab environment. He's trolling and we all[color=blue]
> fell for it. It has been fun, but I am done :P[/color]

Did it really take you this long to identify this
character as a troll?

-Mike

[SomeDumbGuy]

Re: [OT] The_Sage &amp; void main()

[color=blue][color=green]
>>What is *plonk*?[/color]
>
>
> What is google?
>
> http://www.faqs.org/docs/jargon/P/plonk.html
>
> I suppose you are posting with the proper handle. :-)
>
> -Mike[/color]

I have seen your posts before in the C groups and it is good that you
are willing to take your time to help people with the language. But I
have also noted that you seem to have a smart reply for them.

Was that needed?

You may have seen another post I did, I searched on crosspost and
mulitipost. That seemed like something that would bring up an answer.
It never occurred to me that *plonk* would.

I have this name to remind myself to be humble.
Sometimes in the middle of your glory you can do something stupid.

[WW]

Re: [OT] The_Sage &amp; void main()

SomeDumbGuy wrote:[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> What is *plonk*?[/color]
>>
>> What is google?
>>
>> http://www.faqs.org/docs/jargon/P/plonk.html
>>
>> I suppose you are posting with the proper handle. :-)[/color]
>
> I have seen your posts before in the C groups and it is good that you
> are willing to take your time to help people with the language. But I
> have also noted that you seem to have a smart reply for them.
>
> Was that needed?
>
> You may have seen another post I did, I searched on crosspost and
> mulitipost. That seemed like something that would bring up an answer.
> It never occurred to me that *plonk* would.
>
> I have this name to remind myself to be humble.
> Sometimes in the middle of your glory you can do something stupid.[/color]

Print this, and it will remind you:

http://mars-attacks.org/~boklm/browse/humor/bart.gif

--
WW aka Attila

[Chris Johnson]

Re: [OT] The_Sage &amp; void main()

In article <AKsdb.21577$ZR 1.20442@nwrddc0 1.gnilink.net>, SomeDumbGuy wrote:[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>What is *plonk*?[/color][/color][/color]
[SNIP][color=blue][color=green]
>> What is google?
>> I suppose you are posting with the proper handle. :-)
>> -Mike[/color][/color]
[SNIP][color=blue]
> Was that needed?[/color]
[SNIP][color=blue]
> I have this name to remind myself to be humble.
> Sometimes in the middle of your glory you can do something stupid.[/color]
Nice message in there but that's my opinion.

Brevity makes for some interesting communication misunderstandin gs.
Some people are "smart asses".
Some people are rude.
Some people are hyper-sensitive.
Some people are insensitive.
Some people are ignorant.
Some people are brilliant.
Some people are ...

What all people share in common is they have a unique perception all
their own that will invariably differ from someone else's.

USENET can be a resource for information, or it can be a total waste
of time. It can be pleasant and it can be hostile. USENET is a
culmination of peoples ideas and thoughts - some should be shared
while others should not. Take with you what works and discard what
doesn't. Life in general works like that...

To stay on-topic this has nothing to do with The C++ Standard.

Excuse me now while I go lower the score on this thread as simply
plonking the trolls is not enough to keep this from showing up
in my news reader.

C Johnson
--
echo "qripwbuafba@rk pvgr.pbz" | rot13


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[SomeDumbGuy]

Re: [OT] The_Sage &amp; void main()

Chris Johnson wrote:
[color=blue]
> In article <AKsdb.21577$ZR 1.20442@nwrddc0 1.gnilink.net>, SomeDumbGuy wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>What is *plonk*?[/color][/color]
>
> [SNIP]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>What is google?
>>>I suppose you are posting with the proper handle. :-)
>>>-Mike[/color][/color]
>
> [SNIP]
>[color=green]
>>Was that needed?[/color]
>
> [SNIP]
>[color=green]
>>I have this name to remind myself to be humble.
>>Sometimes in the middle of your glory you can do something stupid.[/color]
>
> Nice message in there but that's my opinion.
>
> Brevity makes for some interesting communication misunderstandin gs.
> Some people are "smart asses".
> Some people are rude.
> Some people are hyper-sensitive.
> Some people are insensitive.
> Some people are ignorant.
> Some people are brilliant.
> Some people are ...
>
> What all people share in common is they have a unique perception all
> their own that will invariably differ from someone else's.
>
> USENET can be a resource for information, or it can be a total waste
> of time. It can be pleasant and it can be hostile. USENET is a
> culmination of peoples ideas and thoughts - some should be shared
> while others should not. Take with you what works and discard what
> doesn't. Life in general works like that...
>
> To stay on-topic this has nothing to do with The C++ Standard.
>
> Excuse me now while I go lower the score on this thread as simply
> plonking the trolls is not enough to keep this from showing up
> in my news reader.
>
> C Johnson[/color]
$B;d$O(BC++ $B$H$9$kI,MW$, $J$+$C$?$,$3$3$ K;HMQ$5$l$?8@MU $H$7$J$1$l$P$J$ i$J$+$C(B
$B$?$3$H%K%f!< %9%0%k!<%W$N<AL d$r$7$?!#$=$l$O $"$C$?=>$C$F;d$ O%]%9%H$r$h$j$h(B
$B$/M}2r$G$-$k!#;d$O1~Ez$GI n?+$5$l$FF@$k!# ;d$O$"$J$?$N%a% C%;!<%8$,:G8e$N It(B
$BJ,$^$G6=L#?< $+$C$?$3$H$r9M$ ($?!#:#;d$O(Bt engu $B$G$"$k$+!#;d $O2??M$+$N?M!9% $(B
$B%s%?!<%M%C%H $K$?$/$5$s$N;~4V$r;H$ &$3$H$r9M$($k!# ;d$rF0$+$90Y$K$ "$j$,$H$&!# (B

[SomeDumbGuy]

Re: [OT] The_Sage &amp; void main()

Chris Johnson wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Was that needed?[/color]
>
> Excuse me now while I go lower the score on this thread as simply
> plonking the trolls is not enough to keep this from showing up
> in my news reader.[/color]

You are correct.
I should have remembered that my name was to keep myself humble, not
others. I have failed.

Still, it has been implied that I was dumb for asking in the first place.
I was always told "The only dumb question is the one that is never asked"

I have learned something, even if it came with some baggage.
I will go so far as to apologize if my reply was taken as rude.
I will also take your advice, and try not to worry about how other
people are, as I got the information I asked for.
Thank you