«

On 2005-12-07, Default User wrote:
> Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>
>> * anderberg:
>
>> > {
>> > Functor();
>> > return 0;
>>
>> Not necessary in 'main', because 'main' is a special function.
>
> While techinically true, it's not any kind of error to include the
> return. I always include it. If nothing else, it signals to the
> maintainer that the original programmer didn't just forget about the
> return, that 0 was indeed what was meant.
>
> Some compilers will flag it with a warning.
>
> Many common coding standards mandate the use of explict returns in
> main().

http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html#void-main says

"Note also that neither ISO C++ nor C99 allows you to leave
the type out of a declaration. That is, in contrast to C89
and ARM C++ ,"int" is not assumed where a type is missing in a
declaration. Consequently:

#include<iostream>

main() { /* ... */ }

is an error because the return type of main() is missing."

--
anderberg: People are just mutations. Some worse than others.

anderberg wrote:

>>> * anderberg:
>>
>>> > {
>>> > Functor();
>>> > return 0;
>>>
>>> Not necessary in 'main', because 'main' is a special function.
>>
>> While techinically true, it's not any kind of error to include the
>> return. I always include it. If nothing else, it signals to the
>> maintainer that the original programmer didn't just forget about the
>> return, that 0 was indeed what was meant.
>>
>> Some compilers will flag it with a warning.
>>
>> Many common coding standards mandate the use of explict returns in
>> main().
>
> http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html#void-main says
>
> "Note also that neither ISO C++ nor C99 allows you to leave
> the type out of a declaration. That is, in contrast to C89
> and ARM C++ ,"int" is not assumed where a type is missing in a
> declaration. Consequently:
>
> #include<iostream>
>
> main() { /* ... */ }
>
> is an error because the return type of main() is missing."

Yes, however, that's only talking about the return _type_, not about the
explicit return statement.
I.e.:

int main() { }

is not an error, even though a return is missing.

anderberg wrote:

> On 2005-12-07, Default User wrote:
> > Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> >
> >> * anderberg:
> >
> >> > {
> >> > Functor();
> >> > return 0;
> >>
> >> Not necessary in 'main', because 'main' is a special function.
> >
> > While techinically true, it's not any kind of error to include the
> > return. I always include it. If nothing else, it signals to the
> > maintainer that the original programmer didn't just forget about the
> > return, that 0 was indeed what was meant.
> >
> > Some compilers will flag it with a warning.
> >
> > Many common coding standards mandate the use of explict returns in
> > main().
>
> http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html#void-main says
>
> "Note also that neither ISO C++ nor C99 allows you to leave
> the type out of a declaration. That is, in contrast to C89
> and ARM C++ ,"int" is not assumed where a type is missing in a
> declaration. Consequently:
>
> #include<iostream>
>
> main() { /* ... */ }
>
> is an error because the return type of main() is missing."


You are confused about what we were discussing. We were going over this
programming idiom:

int main()
{
// do stuff
}

Versus:

int main()
{
// do stuff

return 0;
}


Alf points out, correctly, that the return statement is not required in
main() because the standard mandates that falling off the end for that
function (alone) is the equivalent to returning 0. I prefer to have
explicit returns anyway.


Brian