Felipe Tanus wrote:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:34 PM, John B. Turpish <jbturp@gmail.com> wrote:
[...] but I could see reasons why someone would intentionally mess with argv[0]. Maybe support the current API and add a convenience function?
I can't see why someone would mess with argv[0]. Considering that there is a motive to do that, your suggestion would fit perfectly. Can you please give me an example?
<http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=574069> The reasons come down to making the process look different to ps or similar tools, whether to remove path information, indicate process state, hide the real process name for (weak) security reasons, or make a process reveal its real purpose. In the latter case, I mean changing an interpreter's argv[0] to something that relates to the script it is interpreting. Perl allows modifying $0 for example, on many platforms anyway. None of the foregoing necessarily justifies allowing such manipulation in the Process library. _____ Rob Stewart robert.stewart@sig.com Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer; Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.