Re: [boost] [GSoC] Some Ideas about the Boost.Process

Subject: Re: [boost] [GSoC] Some Ideas about the Boost.Process
From: John Bytheway (jbytheway+boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-24 16:43:14

Felipe Tanus wrote:
> Hi John, thank you for the answer.
> 
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:34 PM, John B. Turpish <jbturp_at_[hidden]> 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?

There are executables that behave differently depending on the name in
argv[0], such as ccache (http://ccache.samba.org/) which emulates
different compilers.  Normally this happens by creating appropriately
named symlinks, but perhaps someone might want to do it directly?  Would
the current interface support that?

John Bytheway