comp.lang.c
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Implementation-defined behaviour

Subject: Re: Implementation-defined behaviour
From: Richard
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:56:07 +0100
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c

gazelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Kenny McCormack) writes:

> In article <fsj3am$6p4$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Richard  <devr_@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>Ioannis Vranos <ivranos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> And:
>>>> 
>>>> 1) How to declare main()  { Always a hit! }
>>>
>>> Easy. Under C90:
>>>
>>> int main(), int main(void), int main(int argc, char *argv[]), int
>>> main(int argc, char **argv), and those also with no return type
>>> (implicit int).
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2) Why not to cast the return value of *alloc()
>>>> 
>>>> That's it folks.  Enjoy!
>>>
>>>
>>> malloc() doesn't need a cast in C, it needs in C++, because in C there
>>> is implicit conversion of void * to any other pointer type, but not in
>>> C++ where it requires a cast.
>>
>>I think you miss the point. Kenny was being sarcastic because the clique
>>are normally in a race to see who can answer this first in the most
>>confusing and condescending manner.
>>
>
> He's kind of made your point for you, didn't he?

Amazing isn't it?

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Privacy Policy