2017-06-08 12:11:22 +0100, Geoff Clare: [...] > I can't answer that without knowing why the Base Working Group decided > to put in that text instead of using the POSIX.1-1990 text. It's > possible there might be some defect report against a draft of XSH4, or > a discussion in the email archives from 1990-1992, but I think the > chances of finding it are low. [...]
FWIW, ERN 279 at https://www.opengroup.org/austin/docs/austin_34.txt (1999) would point more towards Mark's interpretation (that "." and ".." should be returned when they exist (not treated specially)) -- Stephane
