Why isn't argv[argc]==(char *)0 ?
dcm
dcm at toysrus.uucp
Tue Nov 21 03:21:06 AEST 1989
Well, just to throw in my $.02, K&R #2 states "additionally, the standard
requires that argv[argc] be a null pointer." (p 115)
But, both the 1st and 2nd editions take great care in using argc to
walk thru argv, not argv[argc] != NULL. I don't think they *ever* do
a (while *argv != NULL)...
Argc should always be correct. Who cares about argv[argc]?
I remember a VMS system some years ago where argv[0] was "main" or
something idiotic like that. Err.
Craig Miller
..!cs.utexas.edu!ibmaus!auschs!toysrus.austin.ibm.com!dcm
--------
Craig Miller
contractor @ IBM Austin
UUCP: ..!cs.utexas.edu!ibmaus!auschs!toysrus.austin.ibm.com!dcm
"I don't believe in .signatures."
More information about the Comp.unix.wizards
mailing list