🚀 go-pugleaf

Eugene Radchenko (eugene@qsar.chem.msu.su) wrote:
| Maybe the requirements on the main() should be relaxed somehow?

A while back I submitted several proposals to clean up [basic.start.main],
and one of the points that I addressed was implementations that gave `main' 
a different function signature.

Under my proposal, the set of function signatures that `main' could have
would be implementation defined (with the restriction that `int main()' and
`int main(int, char **)' be part of that set).  This would allow
implementations to define

    int main(HINSTANCE, HINSTANCE, LPSTR, int)

as an acceptable signature for `main', should they so wish.

( The current wording of [basic.start.main] is both self-contradictory 
  and ambiguous in this respect.  See the proposal for full details.  )

[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy is
  summarized in http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html
]