An odd difference between "cat file" and "cat<file"

[Danny]

    Just to add more fuel to the fire, let me quote from the UNIX*
Programmer's Manual, Volume 2, "An Introduction to the UNIX Shell",
S. R. Bourne, section 3.7 "Command execution":

...In the following *word* is only subject to parameter and command
substitution.  No file name generation or blank interpretation takes
place so that, for example,

            echo ... > *.c

will write its output into a file whose name is *.c.

    My gosh, maybe it isn't the most user-friendly thing around,
or not what some people want (please don't take that as a personal
affront), but at least IT IS DOCUMENTED!!!  Why issit that people
no read manuals?

* UNIX is a trademark of Bell Laboratories.
S. R. Bourne is an employee of Bell Laboratories.
D. S. Cox is a figment of the imagination of a rather non-descript
          Kowala in the Austrailian out-back.
-- 
				Daniel S. Cox
				(akgua!itm!danny)