on linux you return /proc/self/exe, this is symlink, i think need to readlink for it. because some times need real path, dir or exe.

@kostya I don't follow symlinks by default for all destinations. This is stated in the documentation. For every platform, the reported executable file may be a symlink.

I chose to because there is no need for that to open the current executable (eg: to read the DWARF sections); but I have no problem changing this to always call File.real_path(executable) to canonicalize symlinks. This will require to rescue errors in case the file doesn't exist anymore or can't be found.

I don't follow symlinks by default for all destinations. This is stated in the documentation. For every platform, the reported executable file may be a symlink.

I think that might be a bit inconsistent and will force users that want to use executalbe_path? to rely on File.real_path or platform-specific conditions, making end-user code a bit ugly.

There is also chances for newcomers to perform File.basename(Process.executable_path?) and ending just with exe as result (that will be pretty high considering lot of people do not read the docs and caveats, hehe)

One last point is that you lookup for that executable name in PATH but executables can be called directly without being in PATH.

I didn't look at the code yet, but I would just name it File.executable_path without the trailing ?. I know it can return nil, but we usually use that when we have two methods, one possibly returning nil and the other one raising.

@luislavena good points. I'll change that.
@asterite ok.

@asterite I just pushed the changes. Process -> File, no more ? methods and I expand all symlinks and canonicalize the full path (thanks to realpath).

you lookup for that executable name in PATH but executables can be called directly without being in PATH

I only lookup into PATH only after checking that the name didn't contain any file separator ('' or / depending on platform), so it's a mere filename, and thus was found in PATH. On POSIX platforms (which are all we support now), even if I have a foo executable in my current directory, running foo won't invoke ./foo, unless I have . in my PATH that is.

I like Process.executable_path more, because we're talking about the current process, instead of a generic file operation.

👍 from me. I'd also use Process.executable_path, feels better than File.executable_path. After that I'd just merge it. Thank you @ysbaddaden !

I'll fix that today.

@asterite done.

@ysbaddaden Thank you!!! ❤️