Re: void main (no, not a long one)

[Michael T. Babcock]

Dan's comment was that 'void main()' was done because 'int main()'
caused compiler warnings.  If so, int main() should now prevail because
void main() causes the warnings.

Dave Sill wrote:

> >I don't see how "If there is ever a compiler dumb enough to break
> >void main(), I will happily advise everyone to use a different
> >compiler" engenders any trust in someone's ability to write C code.
>
> The proof of Dan's pudding is in the eating. Theoretically, "void
> main" is wrong. In practice, it works just fine. Personally, I could
> not care less.