From: Jeremy Siek (jsiek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-08 21:52:10
This sounds like a wise approach to me.
> It's certainly legal and consistent to do so, and does stop
> retarded compilers from issuing warnings. It also stops
> complaints from developers who don't know the rules.
> For toy examples I tend to elide the "return 0;" but for
> production code I include it, often with a comment to
> (a) say why it's there, and that I know it's optional, and
> (b) stop developers from removing it, because I know
> that other developers would be puzzled by its absence.
> Sad but true.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk