Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!think.com!paperboy!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Strings as function names (again) Message-ID: <15183@smoke.brl.mil> Date: 13 Feb 91 21:25:03 GMT References: <388@bria> <14972@smoke.brl.mil> Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 25 In article , wolfram@akela.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Wolfram Roesler) writes: > >gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: > >>One is that you have to tell it a path to the executable file, and > >>that is not in general available for the currently-executing process. > >Sure? How about argv[0] ? > Hello you pyromanics, stop flaming me for this line. I am sorry if I > insulted a guru but if I want to contradict to anybody I do it regardless > if he's a guru, the chinese emperor or anybody else. However, if the guru > was seriously insulted by my comment I recommend psychotherapy. I was not insulted, nor did I flame you in response. However, you're still wrong about using argv[0] to obtain a path to the executable file. Very often even in a UNIX environment it will consist of only what is often termed the "simple" part of a pathname, i.e. what is left when all containing directory information has been stripped off. In other environments it can be even worse. I stand by what I said in my original note (quoted above). > Once again, stop flaming me, you're wasting your time. And gurus, tell > your disciples not to do so. And guru disciples, think if it's not a better > thing to pray to Jesus of Jahwe or Buddha or anyone else. If I have any "disciples", I would prefer to instruct them to not pray to anybody but rather learn how to acquire evidence and analyze the facts to determine what the truth actually is.