> > On 11/09/2009 03:27 PM, Shrinivasan T wrote: > > Thanks. > > > > . is CWD and .. is previous directory. > > > > Fine. > > > > Why are they mentioned in ls? > > ls lists the contents of a directory (by default it assumes, the CWD). > Since > every directory (including /) maintains a /reference/ to itself and it's > parent > besides maintaining references of all the files within it's 'contents'. > > Since all the contents (ie: all the references) of the directory are listed > on a > ls, . and .. too show up. "man ls" will tell you that the '-A' option to ls > suppresses this. > > > why ... and .... are not there? > > > > any specific reason? > because of the reason mentioned above. Every directory contains a reference > to . > and .. only. The reason why _only_ these two are present is because any > other > contents 'outside' the directory can be derived from these two. So, no > additional 'special cases' are required. > > did i make any sense at all ? :) > > cheers, > - steve > -- > random non tech spiel: http://lonetwin.blogspot.com/ > tech randomness: http://lonehacks.blogspot.com/ > what i'm stumbling into: http://lonetwin.stumbleupon.com/ >
Steve It makes sense when you say that the . & the .. are references to the hierarchical previous & current directory. My question is a reference to a previous directory is explainable but why would you need a reference to a CWD? I don't mean to pull this any longer but I'm unclear about this. Regards N Deepak. _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, email [email protected] with "unsubscribe <password> <address>" in the subject or body of the message. http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
