argc loop . . . . . (was: Re: [tlug] Re: font encoding question)

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Jim writes:

 > "Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
 > 
 > >   for (i = 0; i <= argc; ++i)
 > >     printf ("There's nothing wrong with Unicode for Japanese.\n");
 > 
 > Even though there is no harm since argv[argc] is a null pointer 
 > and *argv[argc] is not accessed, "<= argc" is fingernails on a 
 > chalkboard, neverminding the novel use of argc to control non-argv stuff. 

Aww, cantcha take a joke?

 > If one is going to loop on argc, the C idiom is preferred: 
 > 
 >     for (i=0;i<argc;i++)
 > 
 > Also tolerable, but less readable, would be: 
 > 
 >     while (*argv++!=(char *)0)

Danger, Will Robinson!  Danger!  Fencepost error!  These programs
produce too little output!

If you insist on accessing the argv array, the correct idiom is

    do { ... } while (*argv++ != NULL);

And yes, the arguments are supposed to be entered individually.  No
fair using `seq', this is a punishment assignment. ;-)