Thomas Hruska wrote:
> Wasn't thinking along those lines when I let it through. 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" (i.e. the
> array is NULL terminated on every platform I've ever used).
>
Or better yet, why we do not have the following for C++:
int main(std::vector<std::string> args) {...}
Java imitates C++, C++ should imitate Java :-)
--
John Gaughan
http://www.jtgprogramming.org/
