On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Thomas Hruska <[email protected]> wrote: > I was thinking > some weird mangled sentence involving the archaic 'int argc'. Which > would have provided for interesting discussion about why 'argc' exists > in the first place since 'argv' is "generally sufficient"
Probably a redundant convenience, or, less redundant, allows you know beforehand how large argv is, or to parse argv backwards without having to go forwards through it first (though I cannot come up with a non-contrived example where this would be useful.) > (i.e. the > array is NULL terminated on every platform I've ever used). As indeed it /must/ be on a hosted implementation. -- PJH http://shabbleland.myminicity.com/ind http://www.chavgangs.com/register.php?referer=9375
