🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <41apqg$6qg@Radon.Stanford.EDU>, becker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Denizen of the Deep) writes
+ ....
+ There is no way that the standard for the C language can predict all
+ the ways in which an OS expects to be notified of status.
Yes.
+ All it can do is come up with some uniform way of indicating status, and
+ then let the OS/startup code intrpret that uniformly specified value,
+ translating it into the OS's "native" status format if necessary.
No, the standard can _hide_ the types and valus, thereby letting the
C-programmer doo that which the standard nou forbids, uze a nativ exit-status,
integer, string, record, what not.  It is forbiddent by the requirement
that "exit(0)" hav a particular meaning.  This is C, you know, not a reallie
high-levvel language, and this puts the C-program too far from the OS.

+ Why do you keep insisting that this is the case, when it so clearly is
+ not?  If exit(0) is defined to have the exact same effect as
+ exit(EXIT_SUCCESS), then how can one be portable and not the other?
As aforesaid
+ exit(0) does NOT mean that a 0 is specified to the OS as the status;
+ it means that success is specified to the OS, in whatever form that
+ may take (with some form of translation taking place, if necessary).
This is not C.

+ ....
+ The only caveat is that exit(2) will have different meaning for a
+ different OS.
A further one is needed, that the type of the argument to "exit", and the
return-type of "main", is defind by the implementation.