> 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

Reply via email to