On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 10:22:00AM -0500, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> 
> Execvp() will have to stay that way unless you're willing to first lobby
> the ANSI, IEEE, ISO, and x/Open groups responsible for unix standards!  ;-)
> 
True, and that's fine by me too, I really started with the assumption
that somewhere in the not too distant past, somebody had slipped in
transcribing the man pages :-)  Seeing as it is an ancient design
error, there is nothing to it but to accept it.

> > It is subtle and it is arbitrary, but I believe my version adds
> > flexibility and consistency.
> 
> You might be right (I like Plan 9 too and this feature of it only adds
> to my appreciation of it), but you're 100% against the tide of tradition
> in unix that's now chiseled in widely accepted standards.
> 
I have Plan 9 running, and I am very pleased with its concepts.  There's
a part of me that says we _can_ incorporate Plan 9 features in NetBSD
and I often look for options to do it.  This particular one, though, was
a curved ball from an unexpected court.  Yes, Plan 9 had set me up for
it, but that only made the inconsistency more obvious :-)

++L