In article <CqIq20.Gn0@ucc.su.OZ.AU>
           maxtal@physics.su.OZ.AU "John Max Skaller" writes:

>In article <CLINE.94May27152436@cheetah.clarkson.edu>
> cline@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Marshall Cline) writes:
>>
>>I understand that the Committee was considering fall off the end of
>>"int main()" to be the same as "return 0;".  i.e., as if there was
>>an implicit "return 0;" at the end of "int main()".
>>
>>Has this been approved?
>
>        Yes.

Ugh! What a dreadful proposal! More exceptions in the language, when it
was previously quite clear that _any_ value returning functions that failed
to return a value was illegal. It is bad enough that people don't explicitly
declare a return value for main.

Anyway, shouldn't it default to "return EXIT_SUCCESS"? :-)
--
Kevlin Henney

 repeat 3 echo there\'s no place like ~

I understand that the Committee was considering fall off the end of
"int main()" to be the same as "return 0;".  i.e., as if there was
an implicit "return 0;" at the end of "int main()".

Has this been approved?

Thanks.

--
Marshall Cline
--
Marshall P. Cline, Ph.D. / Paradigm Shift Inc / PO Box 5108 / Potsdam NY 13676
cline@parashift.com / 315-353-6100 / FAX: 315-353-6110

>>>>> Marshall Cline <cline@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> writes:

> I understand that the Committee was considering fall off the end of
> "int main()" to be the same as "return 0;".  i.e., as if there was
> an implicit "return 0;" at the end of "int main()".

> Has this been approved?

Yes.

In article <CLINE.94May27152436@cheetah.clarkson.edu> cline@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Marshall Cline) writes:
>
>I understand that the Committee was considering fall off the end of
>"int main()" to be the same as "return 0;".  i.e., as if there was
>an implicit "return 0;" at the end of "int main()".
>
>Has this been approved?

 Yes.

--
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
 Maxtal Pty Ltd,      CSERVE:10236.1703
        6 MacKay St ASHFIELD,     Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21
        NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA