X3J16/95-0090
    WG21/N0690
 
 
  Proposal to reinstate the meaning of main() {}
  Bruce Eckel
 
 
  Until very recently, the draft has defined the meaning of the special case
  main() {} to be
  interpreted by the compiler as:
 
  int main() {
    return 0;
  }
 
  (whether or not there are arguments). However, the addition of the "no
  default to int" rule,
  while generally very good, has implicitly removed the meaning of the above
  special case. I
  propose to reinstate what we've been saying all along.
 
  Rationale:
 
  1) main() is a special case.  Aside from the fact that every program
  must have one and only one main-like function, it's not ordinary in the
  sense that its return value goes to the operating system.  Some of the
  most widely-used operating systems don't do anything with this value.
 
  It is also not ordinary in the sense that it does not participate
  in overloading in the ordinary way:  main() and main(int, char**) are
  the same function.
 
  2) When teaching C++, you can't get a program to work without explaining
  main() first.  It's helpful to be able to skip over the details while
  trying to give the big picture.
 
  3) It may introduce a gratuitous C incompatibility.  In C, the effect of
 
          main() { }
 
  is well-defined except for the value it returns to the operating system,
  which is unspecified.