Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: /bin/test and stat(2)
Message-ID: <6565@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 14-Oct-87 10:05:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.6565
Posted: Wed Oct 14 10:05:16 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 16-Oct-87 00:40:55 EDT
References: <9721@brl-adm.ARPA> <1849@munnari.oz> <6555@brl-smoke.ARPA> <3283@uw-june.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 23

In article <3283@uw-june.UUCP> ka@uw-june.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) writes:
>	mkdir junk
>	cd junk
>	rmdir ../junk
>	ls .
>This will tell you that "." does not exist ...

How is this situation supposed to differ from
	mkdir junk
	rmdir junk
	ls junk

That will tell you that "junk" does not exist.  And the system is
right both times.

When I said that "." is guaranteed to always exist, I of course did
not mean that it exists as an entry in a directory that itself does
not exist -- how could a non-existent directory be considered to
have ANY entries?

This doesn't seem to have any bearing on the "" vs. "." issue.  If
the directory supposedly so denoted doesn't exist, the form of the
denotation soesn't change that fact.