On 02.03.2014 03:56, Philip Martin wrote: > Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> writes: > >> On 02.03.2014 03:15, Philip Martin wrote: >>> I have no problem with your change but I don't believe a compiler would >>> reject 'int main()'. The standard explicitly allows declarations >>> "equivalent" to the two declarations you give and I believe 'int main()' >>> qualifies, particularly since some of the examples in the standard use >>> 'int main()'. >> The standard allows the compiler to accept other, implementation-defined >> signatures, but it does not require it to accept them. That's not the >> same as allowing equivalent declarations. A compiler is perfectly free >> to raise an error if it sees main defined in anything except the two >> forms explicitly mentioned in the standard. > "implementation-defined" is distinct from "equivalent". > > 5.1.2.2.1 > > "It shall be defined with ... > > or with ... > > or equivalent; or in some implementation-defined manner." > > So an "equivalent" definition to the two is required to be accepted. > Now we could quibble about what exactly is "equivalent" but anything > that is has to be accepted.
"int main(void)" is not equivalent to "int main()" in C; it is in C++. -- Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion WANdisco // Non-Stop Data e. br...@wandisco.com
