Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!ico!ism780c!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: entry at other than main (was: want to know)
Message-ID: <14506@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Date: 1 Sep 89 22:37:40 GMT
References: <182@sunquest.UUCP> <14269@haddock.ima.isc.com> <1496@l.cc.purdue.edu> <1701@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <2538@trantor.harris-atd.com> <10760@smoke.BRL.MIL> <2563@trantor.harris-atd.com> <10781@smoke.BRL.MIL> <2634@trantor.harris-atd.com>
Reply-To: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Cambridge, MA 02138-5302
Lines: 19

In article <2634@trantor.harris-atd.com> bbadger@x102c.harris-atd.com (Badger BA 64810) writes:
>Well, it really is only a small detail, but it is a completely unnecessary

Clearly *some* method is necessary to indicate where execution should begin.
I happen to think that invoking a function with a known name is the most
elegant solution I've seen so far.

>If the burden of proof was on putting ``main()'' into a new language, instead
>of taking it out of a language, how would you stand?

That was addressed to Doug, but I'll answer it anyway.  I'd put it in.

But I see it the other way around; it's not so much a matter of "adding main()
to the language" as "removing PROGRAM from the language".  It's simpler.  In
FORTRAN, you've got three types of subprogram: functions, subroutines, and the
main program.  In C, all three are combined into a single uniform entity.  I
consider this a plus.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint