On Mar 21, 9:03=A0pm, Philip Potter <p...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > 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. =A0I 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
o=
ne
> > thing done, I can go to bed knowing it's resolved." =A0I'm still out
of =
it
> > (from lack of sleep) now, so maybe I should just put this on the shelf
f=
or
> > a bit and take a break.
>
> >> =A0From the other message you've posted, I conclude you don't realise
t=
hat
> >> 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?
>
> They are *exactly* the same in a parameter list.
>
> Elsewhere the difference is clear - one is an array of 'char *'s, and
Don't you mean: "a pointer to an array of char*" ?
> one is a pointer to a 'char *'.
|
