Reading Command-line Arguments
| Argument values | Argument counts | Program name / Script name | |
|---|---|---|---|
| C (C99) | argv | argc | first argument |
| Objective-C | |||
| C++ | |||
| C# | args | args.Length | Assembly.GetEntryAssembly.Location; |
| Java | args.length | ||
| D | first argument | ||
| JavaScript |
WScript.Arguments(n) | WScript.Arguments.length | WScript.ScriptName or WScript.ScriptFullName |
| Go | os.Args | len(os.Args) | first argument |
| Common Lisp | ? | ? | ? |
| Scheme (R6RS) | (list-ref (command-line) n) | (length (command-line)) | first argument |
| ISLISP | |||
| Pascal | ParamStr(n) | ParamCount | first argument |
| Visual Basic | Command | App.Path | |
| Visual Basic .NET | CmdArgs(n) | CmdArgs.Length | .GetEntryAssembly.Location |
| Python | sys.argv | len(sys.argv) | first argument |
| S-Lang | __argv | __argc | first argument |
| Fortran | DO i = 1,argc CALL GET_COMMAND_ARGUMENT (i,argv(i)) ENDDO | argc = COMMAND_ARGUMENT_COUNT | CALL GET_COMMAND_ARGUMENT (0,progname) |
| PHP | $argv | $argc | first argument |
| Perl | $ARGV | scalar(@ARGV) | $0 |
| Perl 6 | @*ARGS | @*ARGS.elems | $PROGRAM_NAME |
| Ruby | ARGV | ARGV.size | $0 |
| Windows PowerShell | $args | $args.Length | $MyInvocation.MyCommand.Name |
| OCaml | Sys.argv.(n) | Array.length Sys.argv | first argument |
| F# | args. | args.Length | Assembly.GetEntryAssembly.Location |
| Standard ML | List.nth (CommandLine.arguments , n) | length (CommandLine.arguments ) | CommandLine.name |
| Haskell (GHC) | do { args <- System.getArgs; return args !! n } | do { args <- System.getArgs; return length args } | System.getProgName |
- ^a The command-line arguments in Visual Basic are not separated. A split function Split(string) is required for separating them.
Read more about this topic: Comparison Of Programming Languages (basic Instructions)
Famous quotes containing the words reading and/or arguments:
“Nothing is so engaging as the little domestic cares into which you appear to be entering, and as to reading it is useful for only filling up the chinks of more useful and healthy occupations.”
—Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)
“The conclusion suggested by these arguments might be called the paradox of theorizing. It asserts that if the terms and the general principles of a scientific theory serve their purpose, i. e., if they establish the definite connections among observable phenomena, then they can be dispensed with since any chain of laws and interpretive statements establishing such a connection should then be replaceable by a law which directly links observational antecedents to observational consequents.”
—C.G. (Carl Gustav)