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.
Me too. > 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. Yes, that's the most sensible thing to do. If there are no objections, I will change the 'progname' module accordingly. Bruno _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
