[argorain]

TIL C++ has exception for main function to be without return even though they forced it to have int return type. Can someone explain to me why this was done? C was happy with void return type but C++ forces int, yet implicitly adds return 0 if missing.

[eesmith]

I'm pretty sure main is supposed to be declared with an int return type, but the compiler may specify something else.

My reading of https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/WG14/www/docs/n1256.pdf says the C99 spec requires "int main(void)", "int main(int argc, char *argv[])" or "some other implementation-defined manner".

There's also the clause that if the type is compatible with int then "reaching the } that terminates the main function returns a value of 0.".

In other words, C implicitly adds return 0 if missing (and appropriate).

[DamonHD]

So as to avoid accidentally returning a random (bad) status code for the whole process in the case where no explicitly return is coded. Equivalent to allowing a void return type in C I guess, but maybe less smelly given that the process does actually return something, typically, eg in POSIX environments.

[2c2c2c]

no idea why it was done, but iirc people still wrote it until gurus started emphasizing that you shouldn't around c++11. around that time there was a strong push to differentiate code from looking like "C with classes"