Subject: Re: main return...
To: Jonathan Stone <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
Date: 03/27/1996 10:34:27
[ On Tue, March 26, 1996 at 17:25:23 (-0800), Jonathan Stone wrote: ]
> I think there are perfectly reasonable arguments for
> declaring main() as returning void in such circumstances. It tells
> both the compiler, and future maintainers, what that _particular_
> main() is intended to do.
But it's not up to you to define what main() is "intended" to do.
That's done by the caller, and you as an applications programmer are
definitely not the caller of main().
IMNSHO a UNIX(like) compiler should prototype main() and exit with an
error if that prototype is violated. Not that I like prototypes, or
> I, personally, happen to have more faith in Paul Vixie and the team
> that works on BIND and named -- specifically, in their ability to
> produce reliable, well-tested, portable, well-thought-out software,
> than in someone who advocates following standards, simply (as far as I
> can see) for the sake of following standards.
As a member of bind-workers, I don't know if I'd go that far! ;-)
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 443-1734 VE3TCP robohack!woods
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Secrets Of The Weird <email@example.com>