That's just an unwritten convention, it could be anything. Theoretically there's nothing categorically different between argv[0] and argv[1], and your argc could even be 0

________________________________
From: Std-Proposals <std-proposals-bounces_at_[hidden]> on behalf of Andrey Semashev via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 1:12:25 AM
Cc: Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]>; std-proposals_at_[hidden] <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [std-proposals] A draft for a std::arguments proposal

On 10/1/24 01:55, Jeremy Rifkin wrote:
>
>> I think, std::arguments name is too generic and may encroach on
>> something
>> associated with function arguments in the future. And the name is
>> confusing
>> today for the same reason.
>
> Good points. I went with std::arguments because that's the form the
> committee had previously considered.
>
> I think program_options and command_line would be confusing, the first
> because of being different from Boost.ProgramOptions and the second
> because it's not the full command line, just arguments

What's the distinction? Conventionally, command line is the executable
name followed by arguments, and that's exactly what argv is. My
understanding that the proposed std::arguments (however it is named) is
equivalent to argv, i.e. std::arguments[0] produces the executable name.
Is it not?

--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals