Craig Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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
Ok sorry Greg. I liked your method of argc-- to control the loop, btw. Elizabeth -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
