Hal Vaughan <hal@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> Philip Potter wrote:
>
>> Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> ...
>> Indeed. To the OP: how did you manage to state that parseargs() had two
>> different declarations? You should *never* type code into a usenet
>> message - copy-and-paste instead, so that the code you post is exactly
>> the same as the code you're using.
>
> You're right. I knew better, but was a bit fuzzy and probably should
not
> have been posting at 3:00 am, but it was a case of, "If I can get this
one
> thing done, I can go to bed knowing it's resolved." I'm still out of it
> (from lack of sleep) now, so maybe I should just put this on the shelf
for
> a bit and take a break.
>
>> From the other message you've posted, I conclude you don't realise
that
>> the [] in a parameter is significant. The following:
>>
>> int main(int argc, char *argv)
>>
>> is incorrect, while both of:
>>
>> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>> int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>
>> are correct and completely equivalent..
>
> So
>
> char *argv[]
> and
> char **argv
>
> are essentially the same?
Yes, when they are parameters.
The declaration will look like this:
map<string,string> parseargs(int count, char **args);
and the definition will start the same way:
map<string,string> parseargs(int count, char **args)
{ ... }
(Personally, I stick the stars to the name since they modify it -- the
name -- not the type.)
I think for people new to C and C++ simply using * and never [] (in
parameter specifications) makes life easier. The trouble is you
eventually need to know what [] means.
--
Ben.
|
