> On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:25:09 -0800
> Evan Gates <[email protected]> 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,
