On October 1, 2024 1:36:33 PM Tiago Freire <tmiguelf_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> You had said.
>
>> 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?
>
>
> And I have pointed out that regular argv[0] does not in fact produce the
> executable name.
> It's just the first element in the list of generic arguments, which doesn't
> have to be the executable name, it could be anything.

I pointed out that the proposed std::arguments and argv are supposed to be
equivalent, and both match what is commonly known as "command line".

And yes, while it is possible to launch a process with arbitrary argv,
including empty, this is not normally the case. This is completely
irrelevant to the point I was making, though.

> ________________________________
> 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 11:49:41 AM
> To: std-proposals_at_[hidden] <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>
> Cc: Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]>
> Subject: Re: [std-proposals] A draft for a std::arguments proposal
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals