"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. This approach does not address James Youngman's preference for an arrangement which results in a compilation or link failure if the user (i.e. software maintainer) fails to initialise things properly, but I don't see any easy, nonkludgey way around that, so we'll just have to bite the bullet. _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
