Multiple executables in path (Was: NON-SOURCE POSTINGS CONSIDERED HARMFUL!)

[Maarten Litmaath]

In article <9688:Jan2313:09:4391 at kramden.acf.nyu.edu>,
	brnstnd at 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 at kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bill Kinnersley):
	"Do phonograph turntables turn the other way in Australia?"
gjh at krebs.acc.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
	"How do you think satanic messages were discovered on records?"