> Thanks. So I do not completely get what you are suggesting: args or kept > it the way it is? Since in the end you are saying it is ok here ;) I > mainly chose this name because I am substituting the argv variable which > is already called 'argv' with this array. That might also be the reason > why in so many locations with struct child_processe's we have the 'argv' > name: Because they initially started with the old-style NULL terminated > array. > > I am fine with it either way. Just tell me what you like :) I think it's fine as is here; I was just confused when first seeing this code. > > Cheers Heiko