Re: Type of argc
- From: Richard Heathfield <rjh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:24:23 +0000
André Gillibert said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
<snip>
Nevertheless, I do appreciate that the game
would not be worth the candle.
I have retained the above quote in case you didn't notice it last time.
<snip>
Changing order of parameters is pointless.
Yes. But getting them right in the first place would not have been.
Clearly dmr was asleep that day. (No, that is not a flame. We all
have to sleep sometimes...)
No, he wasn't asleep, he was simply using different conventions at
this time.
That's a fair point...
<snip>
He could have changed the order of parameters of main at that time,
....but this isn't. The point I was making was that, if he'd put them the
other way around ***in the first place***, there would have been no
reason to switch them. (No, I am not advocating that they should be
switched. I live in the real world too!)
Do you know the cost of modifying the C programming language?
I am not advocating a change. I am expressing a "woulda been nice if",
that's all.
<snip>
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Type of argc
- From: André Gillibert
- Re: Type of argc
- References:
- Type of argc
- From: ad288
- Re: Type of argc
- From: Douglas A. Gwyn
- Re: Type of argc
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: Type of argc
- From: André Gillibert
- Re: Type of argc
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: Type of argc
- From: André Gillibert
- Type of argc
- Prev by Date: Re: Type of argc
- Next by Date: Re: Type of argc
- Previous by thread: Re: Type of argc
- Next by thread: Re: Type of argc
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
