Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!buengc!bph
From: bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: programming challenge (silly)
Message-ID: <2417@buengc.BU.EDU>
Date: 28 Mar 89 17:47:20 GMT
References: <37433@think.UUCP> <4412@ingr.com> <LIMES.89Mar15203439@ouroborous.wseng.sun.com> <1859@se-sd.sandiego.ncr.com> <12145@haddock.ima.isc.com> <1866@se-sd.sandiego.ncr.com>
Reply-To: bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton)
Followup-To: comp.lang.c
Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng.
Lines: 13

In article <1866@se-sd.sandiego.ncr.com> rns@se-sd.sandiego.NCR.COM (Rick Schubert(AEP)) writes:
>
>I believe that
>	argc == 0 && argv[0] == NULL
>is intended for the case where the implementation has no access to
>the command line (or there is no command line), whereas
>	argc > 0 && argv[0] == ""
>is intended for the case where the implementation has access to the command
>line but not to the program name.

I get it.  One is a null pointer, and the other is a pointer-to-a-null...

				--Blair