On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 09:45:15AM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> the empty string has never been a valid relative pathname.
Hmm. I definitely recall otherwise.
The old Unix definition is that the empty string stands for "."
so that 'ls ""' means the same as 'ls .'
and 'ls /tmp/""' the same as 'ls /tmp/.'.
Let me try.
On a recent Linux system:
% ls -l ""
ls: cannot access : No such file or directory
On an old Unix system:
# ls -l ""
drwxr-xr-x 2 bin 1040 Jan 1 1970 bin
drwxr-xr-x 2 bin 352 Jan 1 1970 dev
drwxr-xr-x 2 bin 304 Aug 20 12:39 etc
...
Andries
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 09:45:15AM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> > the empty string has never been a valid relative pathname.
>
> Hmm. I definitely recall otherwise.
>
> The old Unix definition is that the empty string stands for "."
> so that 'ls ""' means the same as 'ls .'
> and 'ls /tmp/""' the same as 'ls /tmp/.'.
I'm aware of that. I was talking about Linux and POSIX.
Thanks,
Roland
Andries Brouwer <[email protected]> writes:
> and 'ls /tmp/""' the same as 'ls /tmp/.'.
/tmp/"" is not an empty file name, and it is indistinguishable from /tmp/ .
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, [email protected]
GPG Key fingerprint = D4E8 DBE3 3813 BB5D FA84 5EC7 45C6 250E 6F00 984E
"And now for something completely different."