C++ youtube video

It's mentioned in that lecture that Stanford has a companion course to the one that lady teaches "if you really want to know C++".

Could that be the week-long summer school course once taught by Andrew Koenig and Barbara Moo as mentioned in Accelerated C++?

As snarky as that reply was, I don't know.

The course number I believe was CIS 106L.

Oh oh. She said void main() is valid in C code.

She said void main() is valid in C code.

As I recall, due to a defect in the C standard, she is technically correct, depending on the compiler.

The C Standard currently says that an implementation is free to define any additional forms for main that it cares to. § 5.1.2.2.1.1 of the C Standard lists the allowable forms for the definition of main. Because of the semi-colon, its final sentence parses as follows:

Code:

It shall be defined
* with a return type of int and
   - with no parameters [...] or
   - with two parameters [...] or equivalent;
or
* in some other implementation-defined manner.

If I'm reading that correctly, it looks like it's saying that all compilers are required to support int main() and int main( int argc, char* argv[] ) but that's the bare minimum they need to support. They can of course also support their own extensions, in which case code becomes non-portable.

Originally Posted by ISO 9899

Code:

The function called at program startup is named main. The implementation declares no
prototype for this function. It shall be defined with a return type of int and with no
parameters:
int main(void) { /* ... */ }
or with two parameters (referred to here as argc and argv, though any names may be
used, as they are local to the function in which they are declared):
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { /* ... */ }
or equivalent;9) or in some other implementation-defined manner.

Well C99 makes it pretty clear that the above definition would fall into "other"... if it was even a valid function signature, which it isn't... when will people learn: int main(void)

Well C99 makes it pretty clear that the above definition would fall into "other"... if it was even a valid function signature, which it isn't... when will people learn: int main(void)

You have forgotten that the void in the parameter list is only necessary for specifying that the function takes no arguments when declaring the function (prototype), not when defining the function. If you claim that C99 does not allow one to leave out the void, then I claim that the C99 standard is inconsistent:

Code:

int main()
{
    size_t size;
    size = fsize3(10); // fsize3 returns 13
    return 0;
}

The above program is an example from ISO/IEC 9899:1999 Section 6.5.3.4. If what you say is true, then this is yet another defect in C99, and one that is repeated in the text of the Standard.

EDIT:
But of course, even if the void was required, if the author of that article is correct, then I do not see why int main() should not fall under "other", and just be not portable, as cpjust pointed out.