Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: have I found a bug in K&R?
Message-ID: <6585@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 19-Oct-87 09:36:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.6585
Posted: Mon Oct 19 09:36:47 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Oct-87 02:13:10 EDT
References: <517@hubcap.UUCP> <321@laticorp.UUCP> <7608@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> <324@laticorp.UUCP> <7639@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 26
Keywords: argv definition

In article <7639@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> stpeters@dawn.UUCP (Dick St.Peters) writes:
>In article <324@laticorp.UUCP> sarah@laticorp.UUCP (Sarah Groves Hobart) writes:
>>I was referring to their equivalence as formal parameters
>>in a function definition.
>Ok, but isn't the non-difference in this case obvious to anyone who
>knows what a "formal parameter" is?

Obviously not; the original question concerned the declaration for
the formal parameter `argv', but some people then piped up saying
that * and [] were not equivalent, which they in fact are in such
usage.

>As someone who has spent many hours trying to introduce to C people
>who are basically non-programmers but must do a little programming, is
>there any way I can get you folks to stop using the term "formal
>parameter" when "function argument" or "procedure argument" will do as
>well?

No, because it is incorrect to call a formal parameter an `argument'.
The argument is the value that is actually supplied when the function
is invoked, and this has very little to do with the definition of the
function itself, for which the formal parameters are quite significant.

If you think that naive programmers will be less confused were we to
use less precise terminology, well, that is not confirmed in my
experience.