On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:09:19 -0500, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Good point--we should. That'd mean we'd want to have three sets of data: the invoked full/base name, the 'program' full/base name, and the interpreter full/base name.
Then we can use this to have parrot look for .include's and dynclasses from the root parrot directory? (See #32178)
I think so, but I'll admit the prospect makes the sysadmin bit of me profoundly nervous. I'm thinking Parrot should have some pretty draconian, paranoid defaults about where things it wants live, with a mechanism to lift them if need be. I'd feel a lot more comfortable about that -- we can't stop people from compromising their accounts and systems, but I'm thinking we ought not make it too easy.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------it's like this-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
