Can I use rdoc to generate documentation for c and C++ sources? If
so, how do I mark the comments?
/* ??? */
void main() {
…
}
In message [email protected], 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
In message [email protected], 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
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…
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
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.
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.
On May 7, 7:29 pm, “Michael W. Ryder” [email protected]
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,