FU: RE: Re: ls completion

[zeurkous@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

On Tue, 04 Jun 2024 13:19:35 +0000 (UTC), zeurkous@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> There's also the related problem of there being no record, upon exec(3)
> (or, rather, execve(2)), of where in the PATH array the executable was
> encountered, so that wrapper programs would have to pull all kinds of
> tricks to properly invoke the underlying program (to prevent the
> wrapper script from executing itself again instead); understandably, at
> that point, coders usually bail out and include the full path to the
> intended program.

Menow realizes me's been slightly unclear here. Just so there's no
confusion: this applies when the wrapper program is *not* named
differently from the wrapped-around program. (Sometimes, perhaps often,
an identical name is desirable or even required.)

       --zeurkous.

-- 
Friggin' Machines!