Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Under the current approach, it's the caller's responsibility to arrange > for a program_name variable that works, either by using the progname > module, or by rolling their own program_name variable.
So gnulib shouldn't be used for libraries (or at least not unless you avoid modules calling `error' or accept errors spewing junk messages)? > I suppose it might make sense for error.c to avoid using program_name > if it's null. That's probably a good idea, but why can't it be initialized to null in error.c? (If the interface to it was just set_program_name, it could be private.) [Sorry if I'm being dense. I came across this a while ago when I couldn't pursue it, and I may have lost some of the context, but I'm fairly sure it will confuse others.] _______________________________________________ bug-gnulib mailing list bug-gnulib@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
