The_Sage & void main()

[The_Sage]

Reply to article by: (e-mail address removed) (Alan Morgan)

Date written: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 01:36:25 +0000 (UTC)
MsgID:<[email protected]>

Rules for Naming Childen:
The child shall have the same last name as that of the parents
BUT
otherwise the name can be decided by the parents.

(Let's ignore the fact that there is no such rule, mkay?)

A logical fallacy...cool! You obviously didn't look up those words in a
dictionary...don't they teach you plain common sense or english at Stanford
these days?

Unless there is an *alternative*, meaning something *different*, ie -- a true
choice, "but otherwise" doesn't fit your sentence. Saying that you have a
"choice" between the last name of the parents but otherwise the last name of the
parents, is an improper and illogically constructed statement. Get a clue before
posting this nonsense next time...please!

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================

 

[Attila Feher]

The Sage,

You have been given a chance. You have avoided to confront it. So far you
have not shown up any effort whatsoever to make any work to support your
fallacies - other then typing criminal amount of name calling. That's it.
Your time is up.

You have failed to prove that you have the C++ standard - therefore you have
proven yourself to be a clueless, pathetic, incompetent, illiterate liar.
(You have claimed quoting the standard you don't even have.)

Prior to that you have proven that you fail to understand even the basics of
C++ or the English language.

You have proven you do not have any of the compilers listed by you, since
you have not been able to provide any real compiler output whatsoever to
prove your claims about missing semicolons and void main being acceptable.
Others have proven that all the compilers you have listed reject your code.

You have successfully proven that you are clueless, incompetent by avoiding
to answer any questions or to provide any proof to support your lies and
fallacies. You top that all by being criminally abusive and resort to name
calling in each of your posts.

Since you have proven yourself as a clueless, incompetent, illiterate,
immoral liar you are officially ignored as one not worthy of anyones
attention (unless that anyone is with mental care or law enforcement).

The Sage,

Your time is up. You are not worthy of our attention. You have lost. You
will be ignored.

 

[Gavin Deane]

A logical fallacy...cool! You obviously didn't look up those words in a
dictionary...don't they teach you plain common sense or english at Stanford
these days?

And there was me thinking Alan had got you and you weren't going to
respond.

Unless there is an *alternative*, meaning something *different*, ie -- a true
choice, "but otherwise" doesn't fit your sentence. Saying that you have a
"choice" between the last name of the parents but otherwise the last name of the
parents, is an improper and illogically constructed statement. Get a clue before
posting this nonsense next time...please!

duh ??

You're even more fun when you argue against the English language.
Perhaps that's because I've been familiar with English all my life.

I know you call yourself _The_ Sage, but are you really the only one,
or can I get my own Sage from a novelty pet shop? I'd like one about
two inches tall. I'd keep it in a hamster cage, with plenty of food
and fresh water, and a little wheel to run around in. I could bring it
out to amuse guests at dinner parties. I could have a menu with only
one starter, but lots of options for the other courses. On the
invitations I could say "You must start your meal with pate and toast,
but otherwise your meal may consist of anything you like on the menu".
They could show the invitations to my Sage and it would tell them all
about logical fallacies. How they'd laugh.

Have to make sure the cat didn't get it though. How long do Sages live
in captivity?

GJD

 

[Alan Morgan]

A logical fallacy...cool! You obviously didn't look up those words in a
dictionary...don't they teach you plain common sense or english at Stanford
these days?

I went to Cal, I just post from Stanford (and no, they didn't teach me either
of those things there. I picked them up long before that).

Unless there is an *alternative*, meaning something *different*, ie -- a true
choice, "but otherwise" doesn't fit your sentence. Saying that you have a
"choice" between the last name of the parents but otherwise the last name of the
parents, is an improper and illogically constructed statement.

Um, not to me. This says that my (hypothetical) child can be called Bjarne
Knuth Morgan or Scrufula Shingles Morgan or Template Overload Morgan but
could *not* be called David Paul Fuzzdoodle. IOW, I can pick the first and
middle names but the last name is chosen for me.

The similarities to the return type and argument types of main() should be obvious
to everyone except you.

Alan

 

[Phil Carmody]

I went to Cal, I just post from Stanford (and no, they didn't teach me either
of those things there. I picked them up long before that).


Um, not to me. This says that my (hypothetical) child can be called Bjarne
Knuth Morgan or Scrufula Shingles Morgan or Template Overload Morgan but
could *not* be called David Paul Fuzzdoodle. IOW, I can pick the first and
middle names but the last name is chosen for me.

Just for reference, what you made sense made perfect sense, and was logically
sound, in the version of the language spoken on this side ofthe pond too. Sage's
spouting total garbage, as always. (Actually I thought your previous post was
one of the best in the thread, I thought it was one that The Gas wouldn't be
able to respond to -- but, joy of joys, he was able to demonstrate that there's
no level of stupidity to which he's not prepared to stoop.)

Phil

 

[The_Sage]

Reply to article by: (e-mail address removed) (Gavin Deane)

Date written: 2 Oct 2003 03:56:21 -0700
MsgID:<[email protected]>

And there was me thinking Alan had got you and you weren't going to
respond.

Or "respond" as you "responded" to the topic?

duh ??

You're even more fun when you argue against the English language.
Perhaps that's because I've been familiar with English all my life.

I'm arguing *for* the English language, not against. And we noticed that you
were too incomptent to refute a single thing I said. Like I've said before, you
guys sure ain't the brightest bunch of people in the newsgroups. I would like to
nominate all of you for the Darwin Award.

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================

 

[The_Sage]

Reply to article by: (e-mail address removed) (Alan Morgan)

Date written: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 22:02:25 +0000 (UTC)
MsgID:<[email protected]>

I went to Cal, I just post from Stanford (and no, they didn't teach me either
of those things there. I picked them up long before that).

Thank god for that, eh?

Um, not to me.

Don't doesn't say much of anything for you. Get a dictionary and see what you've
been missing.

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================

 

[The_Sage]

Date written: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 10:13:23 +0300
MsgID:<[email protected]>

<Snipped Attila the Scum's ranting and raving and foaming at the mouth bit>

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================

 

[Gavin Deane]

I'm arguing *for* the English language, not against. And we noticed that you
were too incomptent to refute a single thing I said.

My sincerest apologies. Who do you mean by 'we' by the way?

The phrase "but otherwise" in the description of the main function,
and in Alan's child naming anaolgy, does not mean "what follows are
the exceptions". In fact it can't mean that. If it did, the sentence
would be nonsensical. I have explained why in your other mega-thread.
Perhaps you haven't read it yet.

The phrase "but otherwise" is being used to mean "but in all other
respects".

main must have a _return type_ of int but in all other respects [other
respects being the number, order and type of main's parameters] its
_type_ is implementation defined. [Note that main's return type and
main's type are not the same thing].

The child shall have the same _last name_ as that of the parents but
in all other respects [other respects being the first and middle name]
the _name_ can be decided by the parents. [Note that a child's last
name and a child's name are not the same thing].

GJD

 

[WW]

<Snipped Attila the Scum's ranting and raving and foaming at the
mouth bit>

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame50.html

 

[The_Sage]

Reply to article by: (e-mail address removed) (Gavin Deane)

Date written: 3 Oct 2003 03:03:05 -0700
MsgID:<[email protected]>

My sincerest apologies. Who do you mean by 'we' by the way?

Me, IBM, MS, Borland, etc.

The phrase "but otherwise" in the description of the main function,
and in Alan's child naming anaolgy, does not mean "what follows are
the exceptions". In fact it can't mean that. If it did, the sentence
would be nonsensical. I have explained why in your other mega-thread.
Perhaps you haven't read it yet.

Perhaps you never read my reply that proved you have no grasp of simple english.
No matter, I can prove it again for you...

The phrase "but otherwise" is being used to mean "but in all other
respects".

Bzzzt! Wrong. Let's conduct a simple experiment here by substituting your make
believe definition in the sentence in question and see if it makes sense...

"It shall have a return type of type int but in all other respects its type is
implementation-defined"

Since the return type was defined as int, there is no other respect, so in any
other respect you are talking in circles. Here is a link to a dictionary with
the correct definition for both words. Notice how your make believe redefinition
doesn't even come close to reality...

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/b/b0577100.html and
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/o/o0147100.html

main must have a _return type_ of int but in all other respects [other
respects being the number, order and type of main's parameters] its
_type_ is implementation defined. [Note that main's return type and
main's type are not the same thing].

The child shall have the same _last name_ as that of the parents but
in all other respects [other respects being the first and middle name]
the _name_ can be decided by the parents. [Note that a child's last
name and a child's name are not the same thing].

Notice how your example isn't applicable since you changed the topic from LAST
NAME to NAME, when in the sentence taken from the standard, the topic is RETURN
TYPE and RETURN TYPE. See for yourself...

"3.6.1 Main function paragraph 2:
It shall have a return type of type int but otherwise its type is
implementation-defined"

So if we were going to use proper english using a more exact analogy, your
sentence would be thusly...

One of the names of the child shall be the same as that of the parents, but
otherwise you can give the child whatever name you choose.

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The biggest problem in the world, could have been solved
when it was small..." -- Lao Tzu
=============================================================

 

[The_Sage]

Date written: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 08:50:30 +0300
MsgID:<[email protected]>

Post Chapter 28 or crawl away.

Only if Chapter 28 contradicts the ISO Standard at 3.6.1 Main function paragraph
2 where it states, "It shall have a return type of type int BUT OTHERWISE its
type is implementation-defined". Since you aren't competent enough to
demonstrate that for us, tuck your tail between your legs little doggy and run
away. Troll somewhere else Attila de Fuhrer.

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The biggest problem in the world, could have been solved
when it was small..." -- Lao Tzu
=============================================================

 

[WW]

Only if Chapter 28 contradicts the ISO Standard at 3.6.1 Main
function paragraph 2 where it states, "It shall have a return type of
type int BUT OTHERWISE its type is implementation-defined". Since you
aren't competent enough to demonstrate that for us, tuck your tail
between your legs little doggy and run away. Troll somewhere else
Attila de Fuhrer.

Do not mix me with your father.

 

[Benjamin KLEIN-FIGNIER]

Me, IBM, MS, Borland, etc.

Let's quote an article from MSDN:
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dndeepc/html/deep05282002.asp)

On a related note: Visual C++ 6.0 allows

void main()
{
}

in violation of the C++ standard. Entirely too many C++ programmers
grow up believing that main returning void is standard-conformant,
simply because Microsoft's compilers allow it. I've lost count of
how many times I've educated inexperienced programmers that just
because Visual C++ 6.0 allows a feature doesn't mean the standard
allows it.

In my opinion, the C++ standard allows void-returning main function
because of hypothetical platforms where the OS doesn't wait for the
program exit status. I guess that compilers allowing "void main", on
operating systems waiting for an exit status, insert a "return 0"
statement at the end of the program.


Ben.

 

[WW]

In my opinion, the C++ standard allows void-returning main function
because of hypothetical platforms where the OS doesn't wait for the
program exit status.

It doesn't allow any other return type (now) than int for main. And special
implementations usually choose another name, like WinMain.

I guess that compilers allowing "void main", on
operating systems waiting for an exit status, insert a "return 0"
statement at the end of the program.

Unfortunately tose I have seen does not do that. They return garbage to the
IS (whatever happens to be in the AL register on Windows for example)

 

[Bonzo]

Your time is up. You are not worthy of our attention. You have lost. You
will be ignored.

Right. I don't think you are capable of it. Prove me wrong, please, by
not responding to that idiot.

 

[WW]

Right. I don't think you are capable of it.

If it makes you feel good or secure, please by all means: think it!

Prove me wrong, please, by
not responding to that idiot.

Which one?

 

[Bob Bell]

Bzzzt! Wrong. Let's conduct a simple experiment here by substituting your make
believe definition in the sentence in question and see if it makes sense...

"It shall have a return type of type int but in all other respects its type is
implementation-defined"

Since the return type was defined as int, there is no other respect

Bzzzt! Wrong. You are ignoring the distinction between "type" and
"return type." They are not the same thing.

Everything else you say follows from this simple mistake, and is
therefore also wrong and not worth commenting on.

Bob

 

[The_Sage]

Date written: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 04:34:43 +0300
MsgID:<[email protected]>

Do not mix me with your father.

So Attila is my Father? It is bad enough that you can't tell the difference
between a return type and a parameter, or that ExitProcess() is not the same
thing as EndProgram(), now you cannot even tell the difference between male and
female?

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The biggest problem in the world, could have been solved
when it was small..." -- Lao Tzu
=============================================================

 

[The_Sage]

Reply to article by: (e-mail address removed) (Bob Bell)

Date written: 4 Oct 2003 13:07:29 -0700
MsgID:<[email protected]>

Bzzzt! Wrong. You are ignoring the distinction between "type" and
"return type." They are not the same thing.

The subject of the sentence above is "return type", therefore the when "type" is
mentioned the second time, it clearly is still talking about return type...what
other "type" would they be talking about? Please explain. The non-return type?
We're they talking about another type from some other sentence in some other
chapter and paragraph a few pages back?

You stand corrected.

Everything else you say follows from this simple mistake, and is
therefore also wrong and not worth commenting on.

Your mistake is commenting on something that proves your ignorance when if you
had only kept your mouth shut, we wouldn't have known if you were ignorant or
not.

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The biggest problem in the world, could have been solved
when it was small..." -- Lao Tzu
=============================================================