From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: zsh-workers-request@euclid.skiles.gatech.edu Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@euclid.skiles.gatech.edu [130.207.146.50]) by coral.primenet.com.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA00187 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 1996 01:20:31 +1000 (EST) Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id LAA27623; Fri, 11 Oct 1996 11:13:35 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 11:13:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199610111513.LAA13710@Pontryagin.McRCIM.McGill.EDU> X-Authentication-Warning: Pontryagin.McRCIM.McGill.EDU: peta owned process doing -bs X-Authentication-Warning: Pontryagin.McRCIM.McGill.EDU: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol To: acs@world.std.com cc: Peter Stephenson , zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu (Zsh hackers list) Subject: Re: pushd In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 11 Oct 1996 09:01:39 EDT." <199610111301.JAA11606@spacely.icd.teradyne.com> Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 11:13:13 -0400 From: Peter Whaite Resent-Message-ID: <"_ymW4.0.Xl6.UGcNo"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2215 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu Vinnie Shelton said: > > This is just a "Yeah, what he said". message. > > pws@ifh.de said: > > I know I'm several months behind everyone else, but I've belatedly > > realised that I find the new pushd behaviour unusable because if you > > bring an arbitrary directory (say via pushd +2) to the top there's no > > way of knowing where in the stack the directory you were just in has > > landed. Since I'm used to being able to go straight back there just > > by typing `pushd', this is a major flaw. If I use `cd +2' the last > > directory disappears altogether. I've got to use `pushd -' to get > > back which is a bit too much for my brain to handle --- plus this > > time the rearrangement isn't cyclic, so the order gets royally messed > > up when I'm back in the original directory (to put it another way, > > the behaviour pushing an existing directory when PUSHD_IGNORE_DUPS is > > set is now incompatible with pushd +n). > > I'm glad you mentioned this, Peter. I've had way too much difficulty with > this as well. I end up running 'dirs' all the time. Here's another yeah as well. I find `pushd ~N' more to my liking as I can never remember the dir stack order anyway. Its too bad that '~' is such an inconvenient key.