In message <199605302356.TAA19280@Collatz.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>,
	der Mouse writes:
>>> So, ENOENT (rather than my initial guess, which would have been
>>> EINVAL) is correct.
>(correct according to POSIX, that is.)
>> It looks like POSIX initially pandered to SysV when it was
>> establishing its guidelines...
>
>Yeah...I've never quite understood why so many people - at least on
>these lists - seem to feel POSIX compliance is important but that
>compatability with traditional BSD practice isn't.

Well, at this point in time, allowing "" to be a valid pathname is rather
silly, and will cause programs written for POSIX-compliant systems to
have false success where they should fail.

>Or should I just try to get used to thinking of this OS as NetPOSIX
>with a misleading name attached?

I hope not.  There's some really stupid things defined in POSIX.

-- 
Jason Downs		   (503) 256-8535 -/- (503) 952-3749
downsj@teeny.org  --> teeny.org: Free Software for a Free Internet <--
http://www.teeny.org/
	   Powered by ... pentium/romp/sparc/ka630/68030/68020/68010

The United States also has its native Fascists who say that they are
"100 percent American"...
                -- U. S. Army (1945)