"It shall have a return type of type int..."
Yet another word you have no clue as to it's meaning. To interpret is "to reveal
the underlying meaning of something by the application of special knowledge or
insight". There is no *UNDERLYING* meaning to the statement, "It shall have a
return type of type int BUT OTHERWISE otherwise its type is
implementation-defined", you have no special insight or knowledge regarding that
statement, and you have absolutely no insight into any alleged underlying
meaning when you can't even get the point of the overlying meaning. There is
only one blatent, clearly written, overlying statement. No interpretation is
required or needed.
If I understand correctly, everybody here is misinterpreting that sentence
except you, since you definitly think you are right. When one person alone
agrees with something (whatever it is), he can start asking hisself some
questions.
Yes, one needs special knowledge to understand that sentence, a knowledge of
C++. In C++ the type of a function is made of two things : the return type
and its arguments. I fear you did not know that, hence your wrong
interpretation.
It means the the statement has no ambigious or uncertain meaning.
I agree, it is quite simple to understand, well that is what we all
thought before you came in.
You are resorting to yet another major logical fallacy. If what is red to you is
blue for me, then you are implying there can be no such thing as red or blue,
only interpretations of what is red or blue.
That is exactly what I meant. All we do is interpret.
If you truly see red where I see
blue, and I truly see blue where you see red, then we are both right.
Colors were not a good example, since it is impossible for someone to see
what somebody else sees. So nobody can say anything if you say "this is
red", since there is no reference, no truth. "Red" is only a name which
we gave to a color and that color can be seen differently by different
people. Think about daltonism.
But, yes we are both right in our interpretation if there is no reference.
But our interpretation have a reference which is the actual intent of the
writers. We can then compare my interpretation with the true intent and
your interpretation with the true intent.
The problem is : we do not have the same reference. You think the true
intent
of the writers was to allow 'void main()' while I think it was not.
Knowing this, there is _no_ way we can find a solution, apart from asking
the
writers about their intent. And some of these writers actually answered :
<quote author="Herb Sutter" job="Convener, ISO WG21 (C++ standards
committee)">
. Right, such a program [which has the void main declaration/definition]
is not a standard C++ program. It makes use of a common but still
nonstandard C++ extension.
</quote>
<quote author="Andrew Koenig"
job="Project Editor of the ISO/ANSI standards committee for C++." >
. If you write "void main() { }", then main does not have return
type int. Therefore, a conforming implementation is not permitted
to accept it.
</quote>
So the intent is : "main() must return int but the rest of its type is
implementation-defined, except for the two accepted forms". Do we agree
on that? If not, this discussion is useless. If yes, let's continue.
Your interpretation is : "main() can return void [or something else?] and
the rest of its type is implementation-defined"
My interpretation is : "main() must return int but the rest of its type is
implementation-defined, except for the two accepted forms".
By comparing interpretations, we have no choice but to reach the conclusion
that you are wrong.
It is red
and it is blue...your choice. Both interpretations are correct because that is
what they both really see it.
As I said, colors were a bad example, since we have no way to know what you
see
and what I see.
Right, that is interpretation, choosing to understand something based on
our knowledge.
int.
The people you consider worth blindly believing aren't the kind of people I find
that have a credible say in the matter.
And why is that?
Facts and logic are not a democracy. You
can follow whatever crowd you want but I don't subscribe to mob mentality like
that.
What do you mean by that?
Bullshit. Unless you can prove you can read the minds of those who wrote the
Standard, which I unambigiously know you cannot, you cannot prove you know what
the intent was. All you have is the clearly unambigious statement that has no
underlying meaning.
No, I cannot read the minds of people. If I could, I would be very
interested
to know what _you_ are thinking right now. Perhaps you are convinced that
your
interpretation is right, or you are only wasting the time of the people on
this
newgroup. Perhaps are you frustrated since nobody seems to understand your
point,
or you don't give a damn about people.
That I would like to know waaay much more than the return type of main()
to be honnest.
No they didn't. I read the Standard and there ain't no one yet who works for
that Standard that has come forward to prove that is what was meant.
You misread.
No need to since IT WAS the expected interpretation.
How can you know that more than me?
Is this one of those make
believe red/blue things you were alluding to? Maybe we are BOTH right, since,
according to your "logic", there is no truth, no fact, just
interpretation...Hehehe!
As I said, interpretation with no reference is always true. When you
compare
the interpretation with the truth, you can then know if you are right or
not.
In some cases, it is impossible. We can only interpret, guess about
something.
In our case, it is possible to know the truth, and that truth has been told.
If you can't understand simple English,
I do, but I do not understand your point.
you don't have any place in this
discussion. You already made two major blunders in your logic in your only two
posts on the topic, don't make things worse by pleading ignorance.
Please, next time, wait for explications before rejecting the sayings of
somebody.
general
No it wouldn't. Do you always make up "facts" as you go along? Just do a search
on the internet for void main(). Lots of people use it.
I think you did not understand my point. Making 'void main()' completly
illegal
on a compiler is not pratictal since there is a lot of people using it.
You may even see that as a marketing thing. But I don't think it has
anything to
do with "C/C++ 'theorists' or 'purists' who worship standards in general".
That,
by the way, was an empty statement.
Yes, you have a habit of not being able to do that very often.
Only with people who cannot explain their point precisely. I think it is
better
to ask for precision instead of answering a question I did not understand
correctly.
Why don't you try to get the point for once by using a dictionary, learning some
elementary logic, and getting an education in English above a 5th grade
level?
Please, try to stay polite. You are right saying English is not my primary
language, but I am doing my very best.
Jonathan
...