| Subject: | Re: bin/38327: uu{en,de}code - any reason to use non-portable [sg]etprogname? |
|---|---|
| From: | Christos Zoulas |
| Date: | Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:33:32 -0400 |
On Mar 29, 5:07pm, cheusov@xxxxxx (Aleksey Cheusov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: bin/38327: uu{en,de}code - any reason to use non-portable [sg
| I had nothing agaist err() or getprogname() in NetBSD's libc. I just
| didn't see any reason to use getprogname() and setprogname() in
| exactly two .c files: uuencode.c and uudecode.c. I've already
| answered: if an independance of executable name is your goal, feel
| free to close this PR. If somebody call 'uuencode' a 'foobar'...
Yes, we like all programs to not hard-code their program name, so that
they behave consistently.
christos
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: bin/38327: uu{en,de}code - any reason to use non-portable [sg]etprogname?, Aleksey Cheusov |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: bin/38327: uu{en,de}code - any reason to use non-portable [sg]etprogname?, Christos Zoulas |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: bin/38327: uu{en,de}code - any reason to use non-portable [sg]etprogname?, Aleksey Cheusov |
| Next by Thread: | Re: bin/38327: uu{en,de}code - any reason to use non-portable [sg]etprogname?, Christos Zoulas |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |