Hi John, thank you for the answer. On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:34 PM, John B. Turpish <jbturp@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm in no position to answer your question. [...]
Since you use the library, I believe you are in position to give your opinion. That is exactly why I asked away, not only to Boris.
[...] 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?
I suspect that accepting any class that models a string would be quite difficult, and probably not worth it.
Agreed. But ignoring the difficult and worthiness of the patch, do you think it would be good? I'm not sure, but something tells me that this would difficult a latter migration from one platform to other. []'s -- Felipe de Oliveira Tanus E-mail: fotanus@gmail.com Blog: http://www.itlife.com.br Site: http://www.inf.ufrgs.br/~fotanus/ ----- "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us." - Gandalf