From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from vast.eecs.unsw.oz.au ([129.94.128.185]) by archone.tamu.edu with SMTP id <19073>; Tue, 1 Oct 1991 00:56:03 -0500 Received: from chiton.eecs.unsw.OZ.AU by pearl.eecs.unsw.oz.au (5.65/1.34) id AA12124; Tue, 1 Oct 91 14:28:10 +1000 Received: by chiton (4.1/4.7) id AA03749; Tue, 1 Oct 91 14:26:37 EST (from mackin) From: Byron Rakitzis Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1991 11:06:10 -0500 To: rc@archone.tamu.edu Subject: say what you mean Received: from ARCHONE.TAMU.EDU by pearl.eecs.unsw.oz.au (5.65/1.34) id AA10513; Tue, 1 Oct 91 02:09:01 +1000 Received: by archone.tamu.edu id <19044>; Mon, 30 Sep 1991 11:06:21 -0500 Message-Id: <91Sep30.110621cdt.19044@archone.tamu.edu> If you want to exec ./foo/bar, then why don't you type ./foo/bar I don't see why foo/bar should automatically default to ./foo/bar even if you don't have . in your path. Presumably . is not in your path for security purposes. If so, it seems even more reasonable to not override $path in this way. I'm sorry to get so defensive, but rc is not sh. The rule is very simple and imho more intuitive than sh's. If the pathname is "absolute", i.e., beginning with /, ./, or ../, then no path searching is done. What is so complicated about that?