On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, der Mouse wrote:

> Personally?  I don't like things that mutate based on argv[0].  It is
> rarely useful and even more rarely justifiable, in my opinion.

Convenience is the standard argument in favor of this.  In this case it
seems useful.

> If you
> insist, I could live with that default, but I still want to be able to
> override it in either direction.

I don't have any objections to this.

> (It's really obnoxious to have to
> write a wrapper that passes an argv[0] string that doesn't point to the
> executable just to coax it into behaving....)

Could you elaborate a little on this?  I don't follow you at all, here.

--scott