On October 1, 2024 10:38:43 AM Tiago Freire <tmiguelf_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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

This still doesn't make the distinction.

>
> ________________________________
> 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