On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Benjamin R. Haskell <[email protected]> wrote: > If you want to be able to execute something without typing a relative path, > it should be in your PATH list. If you want '.' in your PATH, go for it (I > don't.). Having an implicit entry in that list is idiotic, regardless of > its placement.
Note that this dates all the way back to DOS 1.0 (and, really, back to CP/M -- yes, I've used it), long before hard drives. Not having the current working directory in your PATH would've been silly -- you would've always had to type ".\123" or "A:\123" to run Lotus 1-2-3 after putting the diskette in. The CWD being in the path is entirely rational and sane for such a system; particularly a single user one, and Windows has had to preserve that for backwards compatibility. Unix's history is quite different and so not having CWD in the path both made sense and didn't create undo difficulties for users. Tom -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
