The_Sage & void main()

[Kwan Ting]

The_Sage, I see you've gotten yourself a twin asking for program in
comp.lang.c++ .
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&th=45cd1b289c71c33c&rnum=1
If you the oh so mighty programmer that you pretend to be, why don't you
just write some? (And oh, void main is still not allow by the C++ standard.)

Seeming as how you tried to quote the standard in an attempt to pretend
you're right, I'll quote the standard to once and for all destory all your
arguements.

C++ standard 3.6.1 Main function
Paragraph 5
"A return statement in main has the effect of leaving the main function
(destroying any objects with automatic storage duration) and calling exit
with the return value as the argument. If control reaches the end of main
without encountering a return statement, the effect is that of executing
return 0;"

Now, not even an idiot like you can argue with what it says here. Either an
return value have been specificed, or the main function return 0 by default.
Could you please tell everyone in your (imaginary) infinte wisdom how main
can be of type void if it return a value?
(Oh btw, that paragraph from the standard is only 3 paragraphs down (on the
same page) from what you quoted, if only you had learn how to read
properly.....)

Kwan Ting

 

[WW]

Kwan Ting wrote:
[SNIP]

Seeming as how you tried to quote the standard in an attempt to
pretend you're right, I'll quote the standard to once and for
all destory all your arguements.

[SNIP]

He doesn't even know what the standard is. I quoted it, then he picked out
one sentence and started to misinterpret it.

 

[Keroppi]

"WW" wrote

He doesn't even know what the standard is. I quoted it, then he picked out
one sentence and started to misinterpret it.

Ah yes, one of his many personailities know what the standard is, while
another doesn't...
Nice to see how someone can understand something only if it suits the
person....

Kwan Ting

 

[WW]

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&th=45cd1b289c71c33c&rnum=1

ROFLMAO

Do you like it? I wrote it. ;-) Really. (Me proud )

 

[Johannes Kroll]

The_Sage, I see you've gotten yourself a twin asking for program in
comp.lang.c++ .
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&th=45cd1b289c71c33c&rnum=1

ROFLMAO

 

[Johannes Kroll]

Do you like it? I wrote it. ;-) Really. (Me proud )

Even better than the real thing. Almost - no one beats The Sage.

 

[Kwan Ting]

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&th=45cd1b289c71c33c&rnum=1

Do you like it? I wrote it. ;-) Really. (Me proud )

I'm proud of you WW

 

[Randall Hyde]

Kwan Ting wrote:
[SNIP]

Seeming as how you tried to quote the standard in an attempt to
pretend you're right, I'll quote the standard to once and for
all destory all your arguements.

[SNIP]

He doesn't even know what the standard is. I quoted it, then he picked out
one sentence and started to misinterpret it.

That's okay, I can beat that.
I posted some assembly code with some "almost equivalent" C code
in the comments and he accused me of posting C code, not assembly

I'm sure, however, that he'll claim he ran my assembly code through
the Borland, Microsoft, and IBM compilers and all three accepted
the code just fine
Cheers,
Randy Hyde

 

[The_Sage]

Date written: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:53:32 +0100
MsgID:<[email protected]>

If you the oh so mighty programmer that you pretend to be, why don't you
just write some? (And oh, void main is still not allow by the C++ standard.)

I have, now it is your turn.

Seeming as how you tried to quote the standard

I didn't try, I actually did quote the standard.

in an attempt to pretend
you're right, I'll quote the standard to once and for all destory all your
arguements.

Oh, I'm so scared...

C++ standard 3.6.1 Main function
Paragraph 5
"A return statement in main has the effect of leaving the main function
(destroying any objects with automatic storage duration) and calling exit
with the return value as the argument. If control reaches the end of main
without encountering a return statement, the effect is that of executing
return 0;"

Nothing there says anything about not being able to use void main() and you
haven't offered any explainantion why they would want to contradict themselves
by stating earlier that "other implementations" of main() were allowed. In
addition to that, you also have not offered any explanation of why would IBM,
MS, and Borland agree with my interpretation and not yours? Once again, you are
just another example of an illiterate asshole who doesn't have a clue. You are
going to need more than your big mouth and your little brain if you want to
offer an intelligent argument that will stand up to the facts. Now go away with
your tail tucked between your legs, and don't come back until you get a clue.

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================

 

[Attila Feher]

I have, now it is your turn.

You did not. Now it is your turn.

I didn't try, I actually did quote the standard.

Now. I did. You then copied it from my post, carefully leaving out those
parts, which you did not understand so you could not try to turn them inside
out to make them to look to support your braindead ideas. Like the part
which says that the return value of main is passed to the exit function
(taking an int argument).

Oh, I'm so scared...

No. You are not. You don't have the brains for it.

Nothing there says anything about not being able to use void main()

Except that a void main cannot return 0.

and you haven't offered any explainantion why they would want to
contradict themselves by stating earlier that "other implementations"
of main() were allowed.

Because they also did state there that all of those "other implementations"
*must* have an int return value.

In addition to that, you also have not
offered any explanation of why would IBM, MS, and Borland agree with
my interpretation and not yours?

None of them does. The C++ liaison of Microsoft just have told you, that
accepting void main is a non-standard, standards conforming extension in
their compilers.

Once again, you are just another
example of an illiterate asshole

One more sentence like this and I will make your NSP cut you off the
internet. I promise. Believe me I know the way.

who doesn't have a clue.

Ah. Are you talking about yourself?

You are
going to need more than your big mouth and your little brain if you
want to offer an intelligent argument that will stand up to the
facts. Now go away with your tail tucked between your legs, and don't
come back until you get a clue.

You need urgent medical attention. The Sage. If you want war you will get
war. If you don't stop your nonsense here and you keep calling names I
will, I repeat, I will get your service provider get you off the internet.

 

[Karl Heinz Buchegger]

offer an intelligent argument that will stand up to the facts. Now go away with
your tail tucked between your legs, and don't come back until you get a clue.

You are not in the position to tell anybody to 'go away'.
At least not in comp.lang.c++

But keep up the good work. I appriciate the way you
make a fool out of yourself.

 

[Noah Roberts]

You did not.



Now. I did.


No. You are not.


One more sentence like this and I will make your NSP cut you off the
internet. I promise. Believe me I know the way.




Ah. Are you talking about yourself?

Now go away with your tail tucked between your legs, and don't

You need urgent medical attention. The Sage. If you want war you will get
war. If you don't stop your nonsense here and you keep calling names I
will, I repeat, I will get your service provider get you off the internet.

I don't think I could add anything to a thread that has reached such an
epitome of human intelegence. I don't think I have the kind of maturity
level necissary.

NR

 

[WW]

I don't think I could add anything to a thread that has reached such
an epitome of human intelegence. I don't think I have the kind of
maturity level necissary.

Hey! Don't destroy my game!

 

[The_Sage]

Date written: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 08:23:30 -0700
MsgID:<[email protected]>

I don't think I could add anything to a thread that has reached such an
epitome of human intelegence. I don't think I have the kind of maturity
level necissary.

You just proved yourself wrong.

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================

 

[The_Sage]

Date written: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:27:22 +0300
MsgID:<[email protected]>

You did not. Now it is your turn.

That is childish.

Now. I did. You then copied it from my post

The only place a quote from a standard could come from is from you? I don't
think so. And a quote is a quote is a quote and the quote says that "other types
may be implemented-defined". Can't get any clearer than that.

Grow up, please.

No. You are not. You don't have the brains for it.

Oh, what a wondeful comeback. I'm still so scared. You are just too powerful for
us. Please don't hurt me anymore with your innuendo and name calling and blind
faith denial and dodge and evade tactics.

Again, grow up.

Except that a void main cannot return 0.

It does not say "void main cannot return 0". That is your interpretation and
only your interpretation. IBM, MS, and Borland all disagree with you but agree
with me. They all use void main(). Everyone who has ever used those compilers
knows that, so why don't you use one of those compilers and see what you've been
missing?

Here, let me help you embarrass yourself...

http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/FGA/legality-of-void-main.html

It's simple: You do not know what you are talking about. Come back when you can
be more civil and actually have some facts instead of childish banter.

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================

 

[Noah Roberts]

Here, let me help [me] embarrass [my]self...

I altered the wording a little to better express the situation

http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/FGA/legality-of-void-main.html

Have you read this link? Here is a nice little quote for yah (from the
above ):

"The ISO C++ Standard (ISO/IEC 14882:1998) specifically requires main to
return int."

This website, which you have acklowledged as a source, directly
contradicts your point of view and confirms what everyone here has been
telling you.

I think I said this a long time ago...you are not very good at this are
you (unless you are trolling and then it is the best in a long time).

There are several reasons why you may have made this mistake:

* you don't know the difference between C and C++ and only halfway read
the above...
* you have no idea what the above site says and only saw "void main
~~~~~~ C++ ~~~~ is legal ~~~~~" (the ~ are ignored words )
* you have never read the above because you really DON'T know how to read
* feigning ignorance to get a rise out of people, excelent job.
* you really ARE that ignorant. (I rarely call people this even if they
are).

What I find rather interesting is that the same list that you said would
compile your broken code without error is the list of compilers that
accept void main for C on the above site.

Anyway, I am sure everyone can rest easily now that you have confirmed
our position with your own quotes in a way that is totally undeniable
and without margin for misinterpretation. Thank you.

Nothing to see here, move along...

NR

 

[Mike Wahler]

It does not say "void main cannot return 0". That is your interpretation and
only your interpretation. IBM, MS, and Borland all disagree with you but agree
with me. They all use void main(). Everyone who has ever used those compilers
knows that, so why don't you use one of those compilers and see what you've been
missing?

Here, let me help you embarrass yourself...

http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/FGA/legality-of-void-main.html

OK, I read that page. Nowhere does it assert
that 'void' is a valid return type for the entry
point function 'main()' in a C++ program. If I
missed it, feel free to point it out.

You 'support' your assertion by citing material
which contradicts your assertion. Good job.

-Mike

 

[WW]

You just proved yourself wrong.

You have just been absolutely ridiculous.

 

[WW]

That is childish.

I am happy you have discovered that you are childish.

The only place a quote from a standard could come from is from you?

No. But the place a quote from the standard *came* in this case was me.

I don't think so.
Irrelevant.

And a quote is a quote is a quote and the quote says
that "other types may be implemented-defined".

No, it does not tell that. I have the standard in my hand.

Can't get any clearer than that.

Really. Could you tell me again (as you have implied that *you* have
quoted, which would be a lie) what section and under that what paragraph
numbers contain the requirements of the main function in a C++ program?
Come on! Faster!

My quote (carefully cut out by you) have also contained the part where the
standard talk about the *mandatory* use of the *integer* return value of
main. Which paragraph is that? You tried
to say that you have the
standard. So come on, quote!

Grow up, please.

I have done that 20 years ago. Now it is your turn.

Oh, what a wondeful comeback. I'm still so scared.
B/S.

You are just too powerful for us.
Please don't hurt me anymore with your innuendo and
name calling and blind faith denial and dodge and evade tactics.

Whooo. Did you write that alone, or mom was helping?

Again, grow up.

You cannot grow up twice.

It does not say "void main cannot return 0".

It says main must return an integer.

That is your interpretation

No, that is the standard.

and only your interpretation.

And Microsofts, and IBMs' and Borlands and EDGs and Intels and SUNs and all
the compiler writers.

IBM, MS, and Borland all disagree with you but agree with me.

No, they don't. The representative of Microsoft has told you already that
Microsoft does not agree with you. Stop lieing.

They all use void main().

No. They all accept void main() as a backward compatibility for their
non-standard compilers from the past.

Everyone who has ever used those compilers knows that, so why don't
you use one of those compilers and see what you've been missing?

I don't need to. Compilers don't define the language. The standard does.

Here, let me help you embarrass yourself...

Thank you. I know you are a master of embarrassing yourself, but I am not
planning to do that.
http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/FGA/legality-of-void-main.html

A ridiculous page made by someone who cannot even create valid HTML is good
for a laugh, but it does not define the language. But I have to
congratulate you: you really know how to embarrass yourself. Good job.

It's simple: You do not know what you are talking about.

Sure. And you do. Except that so far the representative of Microsoft
proved you are wrong, Andy Koenig proved you are wrong and countless other
well-respected members of the C and C++ community did. You *are*
ridiculous.

Come back
when you can be more civil and actually have some facts instead of
childish banter.

Come back when you can be more civil and actually have some facts instead of
childish banter.

 

[WW]

OK, I read that page. Nowhere does it assert
that 'void' is a valid return type for the entry
point function 'main()' in a C++ program. If I
missed it, feel free to point it out.

You 'support' your assertion by citing material
which contradicts your assertion. Good job.

I missed that part. I looked at the list of links, none of which has
anything to do with the langauge definition... and dismissed it as
irrelevant. But as I looked at it better... it is quote the opposite than
The Troll whished for.