On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:28:12 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:22:40 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >> Yes, it would be a valid .c file because a library doesn't need to
>> >> have a main() function.
>> > 
>> >   Have you checked that the C standard agrees with you?
> 
>> I researched a little bit, yes.  By definition, a library is not a
>> program, just a collection of functions, and as such, a main function
>> is not required (in fact, it could cause problems to have a library
>> with a main() function).
> 
>   That's not what I meant. I was talking about source files which
>   contain
> nothing. The question was whether an empty file is a valid C source
> file, to which you responded positively, which is why I asked whether
> the standard also says so.

The bit you quoted from what I said specifically had to do with a main() 
function not being needed.  It wasn't clear that you were talking about 
an empty file, I thought you were specifically talking about the lack of 
a main() function, since that's what you quoted.

Though now that you've clarified, I see that it could be read either way.

Jim

Post a reply to this message