To: Jerry Coffin
Subject: Sunir ventures into C++
 JC> Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how being implementation
 JC> defined makes things much (or really ANY) different from how they've
 JC> been all along.  If a particular implemenation wants to accept a
 JC> different form of main, it's always been able to do so.
Yes, but not with the /ansi switch on... well, in C, anyway.  I need to
read the C++ specs.
Y'know, maybe my unflinching desire to make WASTE completely portable has
driven me over the edge of ANSI C legalism.
Yup.
 
 JC> Sure.  If you're interested in portability, you don't use things that
 JC> are implementation defined.  Can you explain how `void main()' being
 JC> undefined is ANY different from it being implementation defined?  If
 JC> there's a real difference, I'm missing it...
Implementation defined doesn't flag an major error.  In fact, it doesn't
flag anything unless you have megawarnings on.
If C++ has no mandate for portability, so be it.  In that case, I'll stop
complaining. <-- yeah right. :)
SS
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------