Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #45735

Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion.

Show all headers | View raw

On 6/9/2014 3:14 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
>> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>> I just checked, and K&R2 actually uses the old "main()" form in its
>>> examples.  I'd call that a minor flaw in an otherwise very good book,
>>> and I wouldn't reject K&R2 for that reason.
>>
>>> The empty parentheses are also obsolescent, and have been since the 1989
>>> ANSI C standard.  The preferred way to define the main function is:
>>
>>>     int main(void) { /* ... */ }
>>
>>> I've never seen a compiler that would complain about "int main()", but
>>> "int main(void)" is more explicit (and, I've argued, more clearly valid).

This is where it stops for me, and I agree.
>>
>>
>> Writing in both C and Java, I might be a little more sensitive to
>> the differences between them.
>>
>> Since C's main is supposed to have arguments (usually argc and argv)
>> but it is usual not to put them in if I am not using them, I prefer
>> the () form, with the (void) form when there are never any arguments.
>
> The () form in a declaration says that the function takes a fixed but
> unspecified number and type(s) of arguments.  In a definition, it says
> that the function has no parameters, but it still provides a declaration
> with the above meaning.
>
> The () form is obsolescent, both for declarations and for definitions,
> and has been since 1989.
>
> The (void) form specifies that the function has no parameters.
>
> This program:
>
>      int main() {
>          main(42);
>      }

Wouldn't the new main interpret 42 as argv[0] in this instance?
>
> will typically not elicit a diagnostic from the compiler.  In this program:
>
>      int main(void) {
>          main(42);
>      }
>
> the call violates a constraint, and it must be diagnosed.
>
> Recursive calls to main are not common, but they're permitted.  The same
> argument applies to parameterless functions other than main.

Am I right that calling main within main is universally shunned?
>
> What advantage do you see in using "int main()" rather than
> "int main(void)"?  I see none at all.
>
>> That is unlike Java, where the argument signatures (I think that
>> is what they call them) must match.
>
> I'd say it's a mistake to base your C coding style on Java.  (I'm not
> sure that's what you're doing.)
>

Glen cobbles things together using whatever tools he has. Java might be 
on the opposite end of where C is with object orientation.
-- 
Cal Dershowitz

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Christos Kokaliaris <chrisk.msor@gmail.com> - 2014-06-09 12:12 -0700
  Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Christos Kokaliaris <chrisk.msor@gmail.com> - 2014-06-09 12:41 -0700
    Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2014-06-09 13:16 -0700
    Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-06-12 09:08 -0700
      Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2014-06-12 16:35 +0000
        Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-06-13 07:27 -0700
          Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2014-06-14 00:13 +0000
            Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-06-16 07:07 -0700
              Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2014-06-16 20:04 +0000
                Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-06-17 08:56 -0700
          Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2014-06-16 12:53 +0000
            Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-06-16 08:00 -0700
              Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-06-16 16:01 +0000
                Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-06-17 08:24 -0700
              Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2014-06-18 10:50 +0000
                Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-06-26 19:07 -0700
  Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-06-09 19:51 +0000
  Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2014-06-09 20:15 +0000
  Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Christos Kokaliaris <chrisk.msor@gmail.com> - 2014-06-09 13:21 -0700
  Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-06-09 13:39 -0700
    Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-06-09 21:23 +0000
      Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-06-09 21:43 +0000
        Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-06-10 00:17 +0000
          Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-06-10 11:13 +0100
          Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-06-10 07:38 -0700
        Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2014-06-10 10:23 +0000
          Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Dr Nick <nospam-4@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2014-06-10 18:55 +0100
      Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-06-09 15:14 -0700
        Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-06-10 00:21 +0000
          Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-06-09 21:37 -0400
          Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-06-10 07:45 -0700
            Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-06-11 01:32 -0700
        Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Cal Dershowitz <Cal@example.invalid> - 2014-06-09 23:14 -0700
          Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2014-06-10 10:14 +0000
            Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-06-10 22:06 +0300
              Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2014-06-11 16:16 +0000
                Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-06-11 16:47 +0000
                Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-06-11 20:50 +0300
            Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2014-06-11 16:16 +0000
          Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2014-06-10 08:23 -0600
          Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-06-10 10:12 -0700
          Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-06-12 08:39 -0700
            Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-12 12:30 -0500
        Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Seungbeom Kim <musiphil@bawi.org> - 2014-06-10 23:34 -0700
          Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-06-11 00:35 -0700
          Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-06-11 08:35 -0700
            Re: C Programming Language 2nd Ed, Exercise 1.9 and 1.12, Solution suggestion. Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-06-11 15:49 +0000

csiph-web