> I'll agree this is a potential "gotcha", and I think it would, > perhaps, be better if the shell checked for and ignored empty PATH > components, but I'm sure there's somebody in the world who depends > on this behavior and would complain if it was changed.
Doubtless. Nevertheless, I'd argue that if the $PATH variable has been defined, somebody (apparently) cares enough about the shell's search sequence to have specified explicit search domains and therefore, if they actually WANT a search to start in "." they have to actually mention it somewhere in the $PATH. I wasn't just hassling Derek (fun as that is) in my previous message; if anybody knows where such behavior is (ought to be) documented please do mention it. Gee, come to think of it, POSIX specifies shell behavior, doesn't it? Not that that's any guarantee this matter has been spelled out... _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
