want to know

[Tim_CDC_Roberts at cup.portal.com]

Regarding the 'Why is main called main()?' fiasco:

If this was a joke, then I was taken in, because I penned a four paragraph
beginner-style response to this message.

There are pros and cons to the main_as_default_transfer_address scheme,
of course.  If you allowed any label to be the transfer address, then you
would need some kind of syntax to specify what to use:

      main (int argc, char ** argv) {  ....

could become

      transfer int entry_point (int argc, char ** argv) { ...

The problem with this is that it requires a re-think of the startup code
issue.  One precedent (FORTRAN) would be to have the _transfer_ entry point
(called 'entry_point' above) actually be the loader transfer address, and
have the compiler insert a call to startup code in any function with a
_transfer_ modifier.

However, IMHO, the 'main' idea is conceptually cleaner.

Tim_CDC_Roberts at cup.portal.com                | Control Data...
...!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!tim_cdc_roberts |   ...or it will control you.