Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!sharkey!cfctech!teemc!ka3ovk!ki4pv!cdis-1!tanner
From: tanner@cdis-1.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: main() linkage
Message-ID: <7744@cdis-1.uucp>
Date: 20 Nov 89 14:31:23 GMT
References: <2387@stl.stc.co.uk> <744@lakart.UUCP> <0175@sheol.UUCP> <11621@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Organization: CDI-DLD
Lines: 22

In article <11621@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
) I already explained sufficiently why main() needs to be properly
) declared in standard-conforming (i.e. maximally portable) programs.
Perhaps we should consider that your definition of "sufficient"
differs from that of many other people.  Allow me to note that the
practice of not returning a value from main() seems to pre-date
X3J11's work by a few years, and simply saying that "X3J11 has
decreed that it will now be thus" does not constitute a particularly
sufficient argument in my jaundiced eyes.

) Perhaps you should think about what I said instead of attacking it.
This last claim is also worthy of attention.  Evidently disagreement
citing established practice is now to be considered unreasoning
attack on a worthy effort, which worthy effort should be immune
from criticism.

I certainly hope that the cited claim should not be read as "if you
think about the work of X3J11, you'll agree with all of it.  If you
don't fully agree, you must be wrong."
-- 
Mulroney: "Cut trains.  Drive in | {bpa,uunet}!cdin-1!cdis-1!tanner
Canada.  We need the acid rain." | {attctc gatech!uflorida}!ki4pv!cdis-1!tanner