That's fine. The problem isn't that "." isn't present in @INC, it's that @INC is used at all.
The documented behaviour is to use @INC, but that's clearly not what other systems do when the path can't be a module path, or even on Windows when "/" is used as the separator. I'm not sure how "looks like a module path" is defined, but it's obviously buggy.
In reply to Re^3: do'.\dir\file' under -T on Windows
by ikegami
in thread do'.\dir\file' under -T on Windows
by lamprecht
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |