| Keith Thompson 2006-02-27, 9:55 pm |
| Micah Cowan <micah@cowan.name> writes:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
[snip]
>
> I don't see how it makes a mockery of it. By definition, a strictly
> conforming program could never use those other forms of main(), so 4p6
> has no impact whatever upon them.
Sure, but most programs aren't strictly conforming.
> My understanding would be that 4p6 is designed to prohibit extensions
> such as recognizing "new" as a keyword, or defining additional
> functions whose names collide with functions such a program could
> legally define.
Yes, that's part of what 4p6 does. It specifically *permits*
extensions (and places restrictions on what those extensions can look
like). In the absence of that permission, many extensions, even those
that don't affect strictly conforming programs, would arguably render
an implementation non-conforming.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
|