> As to what it *should* return:  if there are any standards documents to which
> NetBSD claims conformance that specify ENOENT, then that's what it should
> return.  If the standards *don't* specify, then I personally prefer the
> approach currently taken.

So, i sent some mail earlier with the POSIX notion of the validity of
"".  I didn't bother to check what error code should be returned.

Checking that, it is indeed ENOENT.  From Page 30 of POSIX.1b-1993
(Lines 786-788 of Section 2):

	[ENOENT] No such file or directory.
		 A component of a specified pathname did not exist, or
		 the pathname was an empty string.


So, ENOENT (rather than my initial guess, which would have been
EINVAL) is correct.


chris