Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtune!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!esosun!seismo!uunet!munnari!mimir!wacsvax!frank
From: frank@wacsvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: To . or not to .
Message-ID: <722@wacsvax.OZ>
Date: Thu, 29-Oct-87 01:13:21 EST
Article-I.D.: wacsvax.722
Posted: Thu Oct 29 01:13:21 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Nov-87 07:41:34 EST
References: <648@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Reply-To: frank@wacsvax.uwa.OZ (Frank O'Connor)
Organization: Comp Sci, University of Western Australia
Lines: 23

In article <648@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> lvc@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
>All this discussion of getting rid of . and .. is pretty amusing. Just in case
>some of you are serious, here is a good example of another use of it.
>    for p in $x/*/.
>    do
>	stuff
>    done
>p will only take on values of executable directories (with /.
>appended).  This is easier than the alternative of letting p
>range over all of $x/* and then testing if it is the name of
>an executable directory.

Please flame me if I am wrong but why wouldn't :
	for p in $x/*/
	do
		stuff
	done
be sufficient. I don't believe the . is necessary. However, don't
take this an argument for doing away with . and ..!

Frank O'Connor
Computer Science
University of Western Australia