Strings as function names (again)

[Doug Gwyn]

In article <wolfram.666449950 at akela>, wolfram at akela.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Wolfram Roesler) writes:
> >gwyn at smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
> >>One is that you have to tell it a path to the executable file, and
> >>that is not in general available for the currently-executing process.
> >Sure? How about argv[0] ?
> Hello you pyromanics, stop flaming me for this line. I am sorry if I
> insulted a guru but if I want to contradict to anybody I do it regardless
> if he's a guru, the chinese emperor or anybody else. However, if the guru
> was seriously insulted by my comment I recommend psychotherapy.

I was not insulted, nor did I flame you in response.  However, you're
still wrong about using argv[0] to obtain a path to the executable
file.  Very often even in a UNIX environment it will consist of only
what is often termed the "simple" part of a pathname, i.e. what is
left when all containing directory information has been stripped off.
In other environments it can be even worse.  I stand by what I said
in my original note (quoted above).

> Once again, stop flaming me, you're wasting your time. And gurus, tell
> your disciples not to do so. And guru disciples, think if it's not a better
> thing to pray to Jesus of Jahwe or Buddha or anyone else.

If I have any "disciples", I would prefer to instruct them to not pray
to anybody but rather learn how to acquire evidence and analyze the facts
to determine what the truth actually is.