Derek Martin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 01:30:44PM -0600, STYMA, ROBERT E (ROBERT)
wrote:
>The syntax:
>int main(int argc, char **argv)
>works, but most of the C books I have seen recommend
>the *argv[] version.
I meant to comment that these two different notations are functionally
identical; an array name is nothing more than a pointer. For example,
if we have the following code:
Not true. Or rather, only partially true.
In a variable declaration the two are *not* equivalent. In a parameter
declaration and in an expression, the two *are* equivalent.
The difference is, in a variable declaration, you also specify how much
space is to be allocated for the variable, which is not the case for the
other uses.
So, the books are indeed correct, **argv and *argv[] are equivalent
*when used in the parameter list*.
#include <stdio.h>
void main (void){
char foo[] = "This is a string\n";
And this is totally different from
char *foo = "This is a string\n";
The former declares an array and gives it a name, the latter declares an
anonymous array (string) and creates a pointer to it. With the former
declaration, you cannot alter the value of foo, with the latter you can
(alter as in foo = some_other_value; or foo++;).
char *bar = foo;
/* these expressions all print "T\n" */
printf("%c\n", foo[0]);
printf("%c\n", *bar);
printf("%c\n", bar[0]);
printf("%c\n", *foo);
/* these expressions all print "i\n" */
printf("%c\n", foo[2]);
printf("%c\n", *(bar + 2));
printf("%c\n", bar[2]);
printf("%c\n", *(foo + 2));
}
The results may surprise programming students:
$ gcc -o ptr ptr.c
ptr.c: In function `main':
ptr.c:2: warning: return type of 'main' is not `int'
[ddm@archonis ~]
$ ./ptr
T
T
T
T
i
i
i
i
In reality, foo[x] is just "syntactic sugar" for *(foo + x). This
is called pointer math, and works properly regardless of the size and
type of foo, so long as it was declared properly before being used.
[I'm very bored today...]
--
Sjoerd Mullender