www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
From: | khan AT xraylith DOT wisc DOT edu (Mumit Khan) |
Newsgroups: | comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Subject: | Re: STL |
Date: | 17 May 1999 15:48:21 GMT |
Organization: | Center for X-ray Lithography, UW-Madison |
Lines: | 17 |
Message-ID: | <7hpdo5$m6k$1@news.doit.wisc.edu> |
References: | <373B3FD7 DOT 7D692AD2 AT alphalink DOT com DOT au> <373E8A8C DOT 87D93E54 AT earthlink DOT net> <37412752 DOT 914433 AT noticias DOT iies DOT es> |
NNTP-Posting-Host: | modi.xraylith.wisc.edu |
To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
DJ-Gateway: | from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Reply-To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
In article <37412752 DOT 914433 AT noticias DOT iies DOT es>, Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia <XXguille AT XXiies DOT XXes> wrote: > >Note that while this is true for C, it is not for C++; in which you >can perfectly define main() as returning void, according to the ISO >standard. > Wrong. Please check the standard (cf: 3.6.1) before making such assertions. The only change is that if you drop off main without an explicit return, there's an implict ``return 0''. Regards, Mumit
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |