Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "javax.swing.JSnarker" Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: "Small" Program Challenge. Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:23:33 -0400 Organization: media lab? Lines: 57 Message-ID: References: <7kIDr.12088$Bp1.3039@newsfe10.iad> <4291u795eegvb0j8b09lvqkng3hh13t336@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 4npPPMfdItyI4zRPKe6zXw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: NewsTap/3.5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:15429 On 19/06/2012 6:04 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:30:33 -0400, "javax.swing.JSnarker" > wrote: > >> On 19/06/2012 12:12 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: >>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 22:12:50 -0400, "javax.swing.JSnarker" >>> wrote: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>> Void main() is not supported by the C specification. However, the quoted >>>> section of the JLS clearly states that initialization precedes >>>> invocation (which is also just plain common sense). >>> >>> 1) It is "void", not "Void", and >> >> Yes, I know, however it was at the start of a sentence and part of >> English prose rather than compilable code. > > Since it is a code example, English grammar does not apply. "Void main() is not supported by the C specification." is English prose, not a code example. >> Not according to any of the books I've read, and there have been many. > > What about the C standard? I assume that the books follow the C standard, or at least the vast majority of them do. As for the standard itself, for some peculiar reason it doesn't seem to be available anywhere by simple point, click, download free of charge, unlike the JLS. > You have missed the fine point of the argument I have given. I have done nothing of the sort, or anything wrong at all, and I will thank you to stop publicly smearing me by claiming or suggesting otherwise in news posts. >> I read the JLS *as well*. The JLS clearly stated that initialization >> *precedes* invocation. It does not follow it and it certainly does not >> happen *during* it, as some recent posts to this thread seem to have >> suggested. > > Why would people argue over something that is clearly stated? I do not know why Lew is arguing over something that is clearly stated. I have a guess (that he's throwing up a smokescreen rather than admit he's wrong) but no proof that it's correct. -- public final class JSnarker extends JComponent A JSnarker is an NNTP-aware component that asynchronously provides snarky output when the Ego.needsPuncturing() event is fired in cljp.