From:	khan AT xraylith DOT wisc DOT edu (Mumit Khan)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: STL
Date:	24 May 1999 17:10:31 GMT
Organization:	Center for X-ray Lithography, UW-Madison
Lines:	27
Message-ID:	<7ic167$14s4$1@news.doit.wisc.edu>
References:	<373B3FD7 DOT 7D692AD2 AT alphalink DOT com DOT au> <37412752 DOT 914433 AT noticias DOT iies DOT es> <7hpdo5$m6k$1 AT news DOT doit DOT wisc DOT edu> <37497c89 DOT 11751624 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 <37497c89 DOT 11751624 AT noticias DOT iies DOT es>,
Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia <XXguille AT XXiies DOT XXes> wrote:
>

[ yet another pointless void main discussion that just won't die ... ]

>Someone said that even Bjarne Stroustrup, in comp.lang.c++.moderated
>and comp.std.c++, pointed out that void main() is not incorrect,
>altough not recommended.
>
>What do you think?

I have absolutely no interest in discussing this matter beyond what
I've already said by citing chapter and verse from the standard;
however, since you bring up Stroustrup, why not just use dejanews to 
look it up? You can see for yourself what BS wrote and then you won't 
have to say "Someone said ...".

Here's a direct quote from Stroustrup:

   Actually, the best reason I can think of for accepting "void main()"
   is to put an end to the endless stream of postings on the subject.  
   half :-)                                                             

Regards,
Mumit

- Raw text -