The_Sage said:
[...]
Obviously you don't know what a fact is then.
A fact is a statement of something that is true. Like that
main() must return int. So far, it's about 10 people who
all agree that this is what the standard says, several of
which have written more C++ code in a month than you
have in your entire life, vs. you, who judges the
conformance of a compiler on what it parsers, rather
than how it implements the standard. So, explain to me
how you have become so enlightened by the "facts",
and all these C++ experts, who participate in c.l.c++
every day, are all wrong.
I asked you for facts and all you can do is call people
names.
Actually, I've only called you names. And you deserve
it, you two-bit troll. And that's one bit more than you
deserve. Speaking of calling people names, let's see if
you recognize any of these choice quotes:
"Obviously you are an armchair programmer
since you are merely guessing."
"You just proved you are illiterate."
"Wow, yet another completely illiterate idiot. Here, let
me put this in simple terms an imbecile you like could
understand."
"Obviously you are illiterate, so let me put this in
terms even an illiterate idiot like you can understand..."
"You are sorry and a jackass and an idiot."
"I'm waiting for one of you illiterate idiots to quote any
legitimate authority that states that all those ISO
compliant compilers such as MS, IBM, and Borland
put out that, in addition to returning an int for main() also
allow void, are therefore not ISO complaint as they claim
they are."
"Given the way you cannot support anything you claim
with facts or references or logic, I must conclude you are
a total idiot."
"Are you going to bark all day little doggy, or are
you going to bite?"
"You are a total idiot Randall."
Now, the facts are thus:
1) The ISO standard has been quoted to you numerous
times
2) You yourself quoted an analysis which included the
observation that "void main()" is ill-formed
3) You have seen the relevant passage in the standard
4) You have ignored the part that obviates "void main()"
numerous times
5) Not a single person on the newsgroup has agreed
with your position
6) Some of those people are recognized C++ experts,
while you are not
7) At least one of them helped WRITE the C++
standard
8) Bjarne Stroustrup, the CREATOR of C++, says
that "void main()" is ill-formed. This deserves some
closer mention, so let's look:
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html#void-main
(Emphasis mine)
The definition
void main() { /* ... */ }
IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN C++, nor has
it even been C. See the ISO C++ standard 3.6.1[2]
or the ISO C standard 5.1.2.2.1. A conforming
implementation accepts
int main() { /* ... */ }
and
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { /* ... */ }
A conforming implementation may provide more
versions of main(), BUT THEY MUST ALL HAVE
RETURN TYPE INT. The int returned by main() is a
way for a program to return a value to "the system" that
invokes it. On systems that doesn't provide such a
facility the return value is ignored, BUT THAT
DOESN'T MAKE "void main()" LEGAL C++ or legal
C. EVEN IF YOUR COMPILER ACCEPTS
"void main()" AVOID IT, OR RISK BEING
CONSIDERED IGNORANT BY C AND C++
PROGRAMMERS.
Let's see...Bjarne is a C++ programmer *and* a C
programmer, so it doesn't seem much of a stretch to
say that he probably considers you ignorant. Note
also that Bjarne is warning you of exactly what has
happened here. That C++ programmers in general
would think you're ignorant. If you don't recognize
your own ignorance, then perhaps you're not a C++
programmer, in which case you shouldn't be making
pronouncements about the correctness of C++ code.
Are you going to bark all day little doggy, or are
you going to bite?
Tell me how those facts worked out for ya.
Dave
