Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!umn-d-ub!umn-cs!randy
From: randy@umn-cs.UUCP (Randy Orrison)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: /bin/test and stat(2)
Message-ID: <2458@umn-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 25-Oct-87 00:21:32 EST
Article-I.D.: umn-cs.2458
Posted: Sun Oct 25 00:21:32 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Oct-87 01:49:41 EST
References: <9767@brl-adm.ARPA> <231@olgb1.oliv.co.uk>
Reply-To: randy@umn-cs.UUCP (Randy Orrison)
Organization: UofM Math Department
Lines: 30

In article <231@olgb1.oliv.co.uk> olapw@olgb1.oliv.co.uk (Tony Walton) writes:
>           Consider the "ls" command - it's easier to type "ls" than "ls ."
>every time. On the other hand, "." is necssary as a "place holder" in some
>commands - like find, mv, etc.

"ls" is not the same as "ls ''" - one has no arguments, and so defaults to
the current directory, and the other has one argument, a zero length string
which may or may not refer to the current directory (Opinion: ENOENT).

I like ls defaulting to the current directory, and there's no reason to ever
change this (what else would it default to???).  For find, mv, cp, et. al.
the "." is necessary as a place holder:  what would "mv x/y x/z" mean if
both x/y and x/z existed and you didn't have to specify the destination?
mv both to the current directory, or replace x/z with x/y?

It's nice in MSDOS to be able to say "copy a:junk.dat" and have it end up
in the current directory, but then it doesn't allow
	"copy a:junk.dat a:new.dat ."
(But then root directories don't have ".", much less "..")

My vote: "." is the current directory and "" isn't.

	-randy

Disclaimer:  What did i just say?
-- 
Randy Orrison, University of Minnesota School of Mathematics
UUCP:	{ihnp4, seismo!rutgers!umnd-cs, sun}!umn-cs!randy
ARPA:	randy@ux.acss.umn.edu		 (Yes, these are three
BITNET:	randy@umnacca			 different machines)