undefined reference to `WinMain@16'

[Marksman]

This code will compile, but will produce the above error when I try to run.
Why is this?

class Test {	
	public:
		int main (int, char **);
};	
int Test::main (int argc, char *argv[]) {
	return 0;
}

[swoopy]

>Why is this?
Because you don't have a main function. Below the code you posted, you would need to add:

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
   Test main(argc, argv);

   return 0;
}

[anon]

As it says, there is no main function in this code.

[Marksman]

Thanks for the replies.

Swoopy, I tried adding your code exactly below my code, but I get compiler errors:

no matching function for call to `Test::Test (int &, char **&)'

But if I take my original code, and then remove the 'Test::main' and replace with just 'main' then it works.
What is the difference between defining a function 'int Test::main()' and just 'int main()'?

[swoopy]

>Swoopy, I tried adding your code exactly below my code, but I get compiler errors:
Oops, I goofed. It should be:

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
   Test main;
   main.main(argc, argv);

   return 0;
}

>What is the difference between defining a function 'int Test::main()' and just 'int main()'?
Test::main is just a member function named main inside of a class called Test. int main() is the function called to invoke any C++ program. Every program must have either a main (for a Console application) or a WinMain (for a windows application).

[Marksman]

Ah ok I think I got it.
Although naming the Test object delared in main() as main was a little confusing.

[Frobozz]

It strikes me that C++'s OOP capabilities are really just a hack. Not as complete as say Java or .NET which are entirely based around OOP.

[Desolation]

That's mainly what sucks about them. You can't choose the approach you wish to take in your algorithms. If you want to go all procedural you're f***ed I guess.

[swoopy]

>Although naming the Test object delared in main() as main was a little confusing.
True maybe this is better:

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
   Test test1;
   test1.main(argc, argv);

   return 0;
}

[swoopy]

You could also make a constructor that takes argc and argv as arguments, which would automatically get called when a Test class is constructed.

#include <iostream>
class Test {	
	public:
		Test(int, char **);
};	
Test::Test(int argc, char *argv[]) {
	std::cout << "In Test constructor." << std::endl;
}

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
   Test test1(argc, argv);

   return 0;
}

[CornedBee]

It strikes me that C++'s OOP capabilities are really just a hack. Not as complete as say Java or .NET which are entirely based around OOP.

C++'s OO capabilities are just as complete, if not more so, as those of Java or C#. It's just that unlike these languages, C++ has other things to offer, too.

[maxorator]

C++'s OO capabilities are just as complete, if not more so, as those of Java or C#. It's just that unlike these languages, C++ has other things to offer, too.

Exactly!