On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 12:34 PM Brian Bi via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 12:24 PM Paul Caprioli via Std-Proposals <
> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Finally, it must be taught that it is unconventional and not supported by
>> older compilers.
>>
>
> "not supported by older compilers" could be raised as an argument against
> literally any new feature.
>

And it specifically should not be used against this feature, because IIUC
the entire point of this feature is that every old compiler already
supports it.
I'm all in favor of standardizing existing practice. However, @Jan, your
paper is conspicuously missing a table demonstrating which signatures are
actually supported by the Big Four compiler vendors (and since what
release/year they've been supported).

You mention that you don't propose to standardize signatures containing
`volatile`. I think that's the right choice; but again, you're missing a
table demonstrating whether such signatures are already supported in
practice.

I recommend *not* trying to standardize `void main()` for two reasons:
(1) Returning `void` instead of `int` actually could require different
prologue/epilogue codegen on certain platforms. (Adding
`const`-qualification to a pointer definitely doesn't.)
(2) There is a *very* large body of work devoted to making fun of people
who write `void main` and/or telling learners that `void main` is an even
worse solecism than `using namespace std`. (Probably a significant fraction
of this body of work was generated by current WG21 members, too.) You'd be
proposing to obsolete all of that advice and horribly confuse newbies for
decades to come. That's not just "not worth" doing; it's worth positively
*not* doing.

I wonder whether there is any prior art for
- `unsigned main()` — this is certainly a physically compatible signature
on all platforms, but does any compiler support it today?
- `uint8_t main()` — I'm less sure this is physically compatible (same as
my first objection to `void main`), but it *logically* more closely matches
how Linux treats the return code. Does any compiler support it today?

my $.02,
–Arthur