Stephane Chazelas <stephane.chaze...@gmail.com> wrote, on 08 Jun 2017: > > 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))
I disagree. It says "dot and dot-dot if they exist". The use of "and" and "they" suggests that the expectation is for either both to exist or neither to exist. In any case, the problem statement is only the submitter's interpretation. The fact that the bug was accepted does not mean the group agreed with the problem statement, only with the suggested change. -- Geoff Clare <g.cl...@opengroup.org> The Open Group, Apex Plaza, Forbury Road, Reading, RG1 1AX, England
