From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: [UX] real names exposed Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:11:10 -0400 Message-ID: <20160831231110.GB18814@jasmine> References: <147266794967.23966.13712862947716543821@what> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44156) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bfEfE-0003bV-A1 for help-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:11:26 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bfEfA-0003RH-28 for help-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:11:23 -0400 Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:44097) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bfEf8-0003Pe-Ry for help-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:11:19 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <147266794967.23966.13712862947716543821@what> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Help-Guix" To: Troy Sankey Cc: help-guix@gnu.org --mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 02:25:49PM -0400, Troy Sankey wrote: > I understand why this happens: >=20 > % khal --help > Usage: .khal-real [OPTIONS] COMMAND [ARGS]... > [...] >=20 > but I think it sorta sucks for user experience. Just thought I'd point t= his > out, and I was wondering if there were any ideas to address this. >=20 > Specifically, argv[0] references the name of the "real" executable, rathe= r than > the guix wrapper. This is almost always benign, but it looks ugly in help > menus. I wonder if the Khal author (Christian) intends for users to rename the executable. Otherwise, why use argv[0]? Is it some side-effect of a documentation tool used by Khal? I would understand if khal and ikhal were the same executable, and behavior was changed based on argv[0], but that's not the case. It does look ugly. --mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXx2QKAAoJECZG+jC6yn8I1eAQAMTKA+QhSwcGJO0+5zGflPRj IDYZgBIabhrmNmDdr/wCnKIsjNI4GWvgmpvouueZmcZwREMQPGst0/WaGTHnqQT+ 76FIOcrjCue1+dJLWZHk2X22ceXfaPqQCoPtG7iAbwzUwUYIUSvWDO51YUQnYsTv Nt5w6y7u6FerK/b5s56aCK6zT6EYTrvGLyN5RWxzdyjVADRDo/tl4jOtBtbOBip/ iGdhiZzhvUbGXDpOhlCC047AH/QUDzYcjYQoZvMcAc+/R8pEK2rzOMfEHjTs6D4C Zyr6trfRI/yV7UtyPthpngfoB20MxavBBYgOocaDYeIG3l2X6l691d9cPT0DYFa8 2EOXoPomwCYqefn+2AxnQ1jT6UCKccf4l7CyAH8ZDFSuVSxIeOPI6ah+sBWBNaI4 KyHwsbI+cyUU06PWUTaeEf8V++DtggO4OcI7+wZX/eXy1Vjnopn+WUaibk4Qlukl Jwgft9EEg32P5zWHd20XbgwCTTAJKC6lo5pUgLv25WTR3ixD1oHkQADMQYHiU0eb ecWBIrh9ewwh87dpIS4EOjbugt8kcP+5jMUE7Brc83KBBNBxt22zEcV3afWXfVU6 eGtS+CuiCQgN74+sCPyWOuS8/5TFbrJ3Jf4MEz8lryUYSuJKMW+vnqrD6j/xgzoQ M/s5obDJVfuHnHXW3wBE =XUK0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+--