> On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:25:09 -0800 > Evan Gates <evan.ga...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The arg loops can simply be for (; *argv; argv++) as the standard >> guarantees argv[argc] is NULL. > > Hey Evan, > > I discussed this with stateless and we came to the conclusion that > the argc-approach is more idiomatic.
In this case I agree with Evan, and I see the argv loop idiomatic. I have seen in several books and in diferent sources. I usually do the argv loop: for (++argv; *argv; ++argc) or while (*++argv) and if I need do a test argc > something then I update the value of argc in the body. If I only need argc > 0 I use *argv != 0. Regards,