Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!star.cs.vu.nl!maart
From: maart@cs.vu.nl (Maarten Litmaath)
Newsgroups: alt.sources.d
Subject: Re: Multiple executables in path (Was: NON-SOURCE POSTINGS CONSIDERED HARMFUL!)
Message-ID: <8833@star.cs.vu.nl>
Date: 23 Jan 91 22:44:30 GMT
References: <MLEISHER.91Jan18165838@thrinakia.nmsu.edu> <17373:Jan1908:30:3191@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <8807@star.cs.vu.nl> <9688:Jan2313:09:4391@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Sender: news@cs.vu.nl
Reply-To: maart@cs.vu.nl (Maarten Litmaath)
Organization: VU Dept. of Computer Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Lines: 38

In article <9688:Jan2313:09:4391@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>,
	brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
)[...]
)> 	% which passwd
)> 	/bin/passwd /usr/bin/passwd /etc/passwd
)> 	# How odd: /etc/passwd is executable!
)
)I like a which that points out non-executables in PATH, because it shows
)quite clearly any wasted exec()s.

I like a `which' that gives the right answer all the time, that is, the
answer to the following question:

	When I type a command, say `foo', which file will be executed?

)> 	% set path=($path .)
)> 	% cp /bin/true foo
)> 	% which foo
)> 	# Silence.
)
)It is a mistake to have . (or any other relative directories, if your
)system supports them) in your path.

Nonsense.  It's a mistake to put `.' _before_ the standard directories.
In my PATH `.' is the very last component.

)> Had you read the documentation of `which5', you would have known it's not
)> that trivial to get things right.
)
)Different people will prefer different behaviors of ``which''; [...]

Agreed.  But some types of behavior are questionable at best, ridiculous
at worst.
--
kinnersley@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bill Kinnersley):
	"Do phonograph turntables turn the other way in Australia?"
gjh@krebs.acc.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
	"How do you think satanic messages were discovered on records?"