Re: Issues with progname

[Pino Toscano]

On Friday 18 March 2016 09:52:08 Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 03/18/2016 09:47 AM, Pino Toscano wrote:
> > That works for me too, both for license and API -- but should progname
> > be rewritten (breaking users of it), or add a new getprogname module?
> How about if we (1) add a new getprogname module, (2) modify progname to 
> use it (without breaking progname's API) when possible, so that the two 
> interoperate, and (3) modify existing gnulib modules to use getprogname 
> instead of progname, if these gnulib modules are likely to be used in 
> libraries?

I fully agree with your (1) and (3), as they match what I also proposed
earlier.

Regarding (2), I'm not sure that a getprogname()-like interface could
work with the existing progname.  I'd put that as second step for now,
and if it turns out to not work then progname could be marked as
deprecated.

I volunteer for the job, although next week.

-- 
Pino Toscano

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.