From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2001-03-19T16:54:56+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:12849] Re: Library packaging

Hi,

In message "[ruby-talk:12848] Re: Library packaging"
    on 01/03/19, Dave Thomas <Dave@PragmaticProgrammer.com> writes:

|> There's the third case.
|> 
|>     3. When the program is run using execl(3) etc., where argv[0] and
|>        the path to the executable might have no relation.
|> 
|> And probably the fourth case to be considered.
|> 
|>     4. the path to the executable is a symbolic link, so base path
|>        should be resolved by following symbolic link.
|
|Oh, but I wasn't suggesting using argv[0] to pick up the name. Using
|/proc, neither of these is a problem under recent Linux, but might be
|under other Unices:

Hmm.

First, /proc is not universally available.  Second, /proc/self/exe
gives the path to the interpreter (ruby), not the path to the script.

							matz.