home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
- Path: bear.wn.bawue.de!jo
- From: jo@bear.wn.bawue.de (Joerg Sommrey)
- Subject: Re: argc/argv & switches
- Message-ID: <Dnt8r5.F3w@bear.wn.bawue.de>
- Organization: private
- Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 19:57:05 GMT
- References: <4h2j8j$9gn@milo.freenet.vancouver.bc.ca> <danpop.825593142@rscernix>
-
- In <danpop.825593142@rscernix> danpop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
-
- >Note that *++argv[0] is technically incorrect, because there is no
- >guarantee that argv[0] can be modified by the program, it can be legally
- >stored in a read only memory segment.
-
- Does this mean there is an incorrect example in K&R2?
- At p.117f they use *++argv[0].
-
- -Jo
- --
- -rw-r--r-- 1 jo users 75 Mar 5 16:20 /home/jo/.signature
-