Greywolf says:
> cgd sez:
> 
> #   So, ENOENT (rather than my initial guess, which would have been
> #   EINVAL) is correct.
> 
> It looks like POSIX initially pandered to SysV when it was establishing
> its guidelines...

I'd not put it that way at all.


If you read the relevant text and rat in the standards, POSIX allows a
_GREAT_ deal of flexibility in the way pathnames are resolved.

Given that, my guess is that if the various CSRG people involved in
the standard's working and balloting groups (including Bostic,
McKusick, and Karels) had argued that having "" accepted as "." was a
good thing, that flexibility would have been accepted.

That make me think that they did not, in fact, argue for it, which in
turn leads me to wonder if the traditional BSD acceptance of "" was
just a minor coding bug to begin with.



cgd