# Rdoc on c and cpp files **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [May 8, 2007, 12:05am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-on-c-and-cpp-files/103567 "2007-05-08T00:05:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ray](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e9a140/32.png) [@ray](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/ray)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2007, 12:05am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-on-c-and-cpp-files/103567/1 "2007-05-08T00:05:21Z")
Can I use rdoc to generate documentation for c and C++ sources? If so, how do I mark the comments? /\* ??? \*/ void main() { … } ---
**Author:** ![ray](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e9a140/32.png) [@ray](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/ray)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2007, 12:12am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-on-c-and-cpp-files/103567/2 "2007-05-08T00:12:22Z")
In message [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid), ray writes: > Can I use rdoc to generate documentation for c and C++ sources? If > so, how do I mark the comments? > /\* ??? \*/ > void main() { > … > } _AHEM_. “int main”. (See the comp.lang.c FAQ.) -s ---
**Author:** ![ray](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e9a140/32.png) [@ray](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/ray)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2007, 12:53am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-on-c-and-cpp-files/103567/3 "2007-05-08T00:53:26Z")
In message [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid), John J. writes: > What PS is saying is, unless you’re using a really old compiler and > system (really really old) … > main is a function that always returns int. Not void. Though some > compilers are kind of forgiving and will change it internally to int > anyway, just use int. It’s been “int” since the first C compilers. There’s some platforms that are more tolerant, but it’s been that way since K&R1. -s ---
**Author:** ![ray](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e9a140/32.png) [@ray](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/ray)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2007, 1:13am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-on-c-and-cpp-files/103567/4 "2007-05-08T01:13:27Z")
On May 8, 2007, at 7:51 AM, Peter S. wrote: > -s Perhaps it has. Doesn’t matter since when. There are and were compilers that accept it. There are (unfortunately) and were books that taught void main for a long time. I can only speculate that they did this to initially hide some details from people just starting out with C. Luckily it doesn’t happen anymore, but a lot of those old books are still floating around, not to mention old code… ---
**Author:** ![ray](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e9a140/32.png) [@ray](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/ray)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2007, 12:48am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-on-c-and-cpp-files/103567/5 "2007-05-08T00:48:26Z")
On May 8, 2007, at 7:11 AM, Peter S. wrote: > _AHEM_. > > “int main”. > > (See the comp.lang.c FAQ.) > > -s What PS is saying is, unless you’re using a really old compiler and system (really really old) … main is a function that always returns int. Not void. Though some compilers are kind of forgiving and will change it internally to int anyway, just use int. The answer is yes for C and I don’t know for C++ visit: [http://rdoc.sourceforge.net/doc/index.html](http://rdoc.sourceforge.net/doc/index.html) Also take a look at some of the docs generated by any gem that uses C code in a C file. This will give you plenty of info. Do pay close attention to the style of C used. Like styles of writing in human languages, C has many styles and the style used by the Ruby- Core commiters is the style you can expect RDOC to like best. ---
**Author:** ![ray](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e9a140/32.png) [@ray](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/ray)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2007, 1:32am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-on-c-and-cpp-files/103567/6 "2007-05-08T01:32:28Z")
John J. wrote: > > > > Luckily it doesn’t happen anymore, but a lot of those old books are > still floating around, not to mention old code… I know the free Borland C++ compiler accepts void main(). I always used it for utility programs where I didn’t care for the return from the program. My copy of K&R uses just main() for programs and the Borland compiler accepts it without any warnings. ---
**Author:** ![ray](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e9a140/32.png) [@ray](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/ray)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2007, 2:16am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-on-c-and-cpp-files/103567/7 "2007-05-08T02:16:30Z")
On May 7, 7:29 pm, “Michael W. Ryder” [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > > anyway, just use int. > > > > from people just starting out with C. > > > > Luckily it doesn’t happen anymore, but a lot of those old books are > > > > still floating around, not to mention old code… > > I know the free Borland C++ compiler accepts void main(). I always used > it for utility programs where I didn’t care for the return from the > program. My copy of K&R uses just main() for programs and the Borland > compiler accepts it without any warnings. I typed the question quickly and used void main without thinking much at all, hoping to get a quick answer to my question about rdoc. Didn’t think it would generate more discussions about void main and int main … 🙂 Ray,