It supports base POSIX systems aren't non-conforming, if they use how I interpret it. Requiring both if one exists but not the other is XSI, it looks, but my copy of c165.pdf just has the shading, not the XSI margin code. So we could both be right and wrong on this, lol.
On Thursday, June 8, 2017 Stephane Chazelas <stephane.chaze...@gmail.com> wrote: 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
