Subject: Re: Shell behaviour regarding PATH
To: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
From: Ignatios Souvatzis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/10/2000 10:25:02
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 08:19:23AM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
> Because "./foo" and "foo" can be differentiated, I see little reason for
> not extending this to "./foo/bar" and "foo/bar". To me, treating "./"
> (as a prefix) as semantically analogous to "~/" is more consistent than
> making it analogous to "".
This might be the case for parsing the text... but at the kernel level,
"." is definitely different from what parsing "~" produced (~ is not parsed
by the kernel!)
And, if you equated "." with "~", where's the point of having a chdir()?
Of course, just to mention it: we could adotp OS-9s method; OS-9 has a
current execution directory, different from the current working directory.
relative program names are looked up (first in the in-kernel module list,
and if not found there) in the current execution directory and loaded if