Defining code within a subroutine reminds me of the tombstone in Silicon 
Valley ;

LDA              Life
GOSUB        Death

Pookie

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Olin Lathrop" <olin_piclist@embedinc.com>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <piclist@mit.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 4:54 AM
Subject: Re: [PIC] 2 questions about 18f4550


> Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:
>> Correct only from an ANSI point of view maybe.  The HiTech compiler
>> expects void main( void ) as the declaration of main, which is
>> technicaly correct for an embedded program.
>
> Actually even that contains unnecessary baggage for an embedded system.
> There is no good reason for the top level routine to be a subroutine at 
> all.
> The point of not providing a return value is that there is nothing to 
> return
> to.  Once again this runs into a problem with C adapted to small embedded
> systems.  There is no way to define executable code except within a
> subroutine.  Some languages do have this capability, like Pascal and even
> FORTRAN, so the concept is not new.
>
>
> ******************************************************************
> Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
> consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products
> -- 
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist