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 <1178575386.966256.131060@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, ray writes:
Can I use rdoc to generate documentation for c and C++ sources? If
so, how do I mark the comments?
/* ??? */
void main() {
...
}
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.
···
On May 8, 2007, at 7:11 AM, Peter Seebach wrote:
In message <1178575386.966256.131060@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > 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
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
···
In message <923DE35C-CA19-4867-B3CE-FC3DB60A4393@gmail.com>, John Joyce 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.
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 7:51 AM, Peter Seebach wrote:
In message <923DE35C-CA19-4867-B3CE-FC3DB60A4393@gmail.com>, John > Joyce 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
John Joyce wrote:
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
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...
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 8, 2007, at 7:51 AM, Peter Seebach wrote:
In message <923DE35C-CA19-4867-B3CE-FC3DB60A4393@gmail.com>, John >> Joyce writes:
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,
···
On May 7, 7:29 pm, "Michael W. Ryder" <_mwry...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
John Joyce wrote:
> On May 8, 2007, at 7:51 AM, Peter Seebach wrote:
>> In message <923DE35C-CA19-4867-B3CE-FC3DB60A4...@gmail.com>, John > >> Joyce 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
> 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...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.