Proposal: Add getFullProgName

Heinrich Apfelmus apfelmus at
Sat Jun 23 10:39:30 CEST 2012

Johan Tibell wrote:
> Hi Heinrich,
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Heinrich Apfelmus
> <apfelmus at> wrote:
>> The only trouble I have is that these semantics don't seem to be useful.
>>  For what purpose would you like to know the executable path? The only use
>> case that I have encountered is to find data files relative to the program,
>> but in this case, I need it to work equally well in GHCi, runghc and
>> compiled.
> The most common use case I can think of is having the binary invoke
> itself in some way e.g. using execv. The particular use case I have in
> mind is having the binary copy itself elsewhere (i.e. to another
> machine) and then execute itself again.

Ah, I see. This use case does not strike me as very common, but I don't 
think that this is a criterion against inclusion.

It may be a good idea to mention the use case in the Haddock 
documentation, and to point out that running the function in an 
interpreter context will return the path of the interpreter, just to 
make it clear what the function can and cannot do.

In any case, I'm happy with the proposal now ( getExecutablePath 
returning precisely the path of the executable).

Best regards,
Heinrich Apfelmus


More information about the Libraries mailing list