On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Paul Eggert wrote:
"Peter O'Gorman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
getprogname(3), if it exists, can be used as well as other
alternatives (e.g. argv[0]).
Thanks, I wasn't aware of the BSD getprogname until now.
How about this proposal?
* Change the progname module to use the BSD getprogname naming
convention. No sense reinventing the wheel. That way, programs can
simply use the system-defined functions on BSD.
* Rewrite the other gnulib code to use the new convention.
* Ask gnulib users to switch to the new convention.
I was also not aware of BSD getprogname until now but I like its
definition. It looks like something useful to standardize on. The
problem with argv[0] is that it may not be accessible from within a
library, and might not be usefully defined, so getprogname() is
superior for the purpose of obtaining the program name.
Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
_______________________________________________
bug-gnulib mailing list
bug-gnulib@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
