Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!gatech!mcnc!rti!trt
From: trt@rti.UUCP (Thomas Truscott)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: To . or not to .
Message-ID: <1806@rti.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 24-Oct-87 12:54:00 EST
Article-I.D.: rti.1806
Posted: Sat Oct 24 12:54:00 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 26-Oct-87 01:58:49 EST
References: <648@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, RTP, NC
Lines: 42
Keywords: UNIX, file system
Summary: Don't give "." and ".." a place to hide

The infamous "." and ".." have infested our file sytems
for far too long.  They are cute, yes, but so was Gizmo.
We all know what "." and ".." mean, and so does UNIX.
Making them directory entries gives us a crutch,
but also hobbles us and blurs our view of the one true pathname.

They are a blot on all directory traversal programs.
They mock our beloved dot-files, bringing grief to those who do ".*".
They litter the file system, out numbering the directories themselves!
And riddle me this:  why does an empty directory have two entries?

There is, quite simply, no good reason for
them to darken our directories.  Consider yon shell script:

>     for p in $x/*/.
>     do
> 	stuff
>     done

Is not $x/*/ shorter of breath yet fully as noble of purpose?
But supposing we wish to permit this folly,
could not the mighty shell, defender of SIGSEGV,
deign to look for "." and ".." as even now it looks for "/"?
Is this so great a price, when the humble

	chmod	chown	cp	csh	diff	du
	ls	rcp	rm	tar	find	uusnap

must all stand watch for the mocking entries,
lest they be locked within those lurking links?

What is the cost?  A mere trifle.
The odd pathname matcher will need enlightment,
as must the handful of programs who foolishly skip
the first two directory entries.

What is the gain?  Enlightenment itself,
for a heavy burden will indeed lift.
Morn not for "." and ".." for as they cast off
their wordly trappings they will be reborn,
fresh in meaning and pure in concept.
	Tom Truscott