Elizabeth Barham wrote: > The only thing that is troubling is the (**argv != NULL) which assumes > that the last string is a NULL string (the first character is NULL), > as opposed to using the count (argc), which may not be the case (it's > not here). He didn't write "**argv != NULL", he wrote "*argv != NULL" -- in other words, not "last argument is a null string", but "the last pointer in the argv array is a NULL". Which is a common behavior (both gcc 2.95 and Microsoft Visual C++ do it, at least), though as I wrote previously, I'm not sure it's in the C89 standard. I agree with you that using argc to control the loop is preferable, in any case. Craig
Attachment:
pgpTQAhthKjy4.pgp
Description: PGP signature