From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu>
Received: (qmail 11103 invoked from network); 23 Jun 1998 14:47:13 -0000
Received: from math.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50)
  by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 23 Jun 1998 14:47:13 -0000
Received: (from list@localhost)
	by math.gatech.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA12707;
	Tue, 23 Jun 1998 10:42:49 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 10:42:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Zefram <zefram@tao.co.uk>
Message-Id: <199806231444.PAA11116@taos.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Completion bug with `pwd`?
To: borsenkow.msk@sni.de (Andrej Borsenkow)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 15:44:02 +0100 (BST)
Cc: zefram@tao.co.uk, zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu
In-Reply-To: <027101bd9eb2$ac90f3f0$21c9ca95@mow.sni.de> from "Andrej Borsenkow" at Jun 23, 98 06:24:45 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"o9MXk.0.R63.exxZr"@math>
Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu
X-Mailing-List: <zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu> archive/latest/4154
X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu

Andrej Borsenkow wrote:
>What is the correct way to do the above? (There are several commands which
>insists on having the absolute pathname).

Use "$PWD" or "~+" instead of "`pwd`".  It is possible to perform pathname
completion leaving pathname expansions and parameter expansions in the
word, where command substitutions must be expanded.  It also saves a
process (and some time) and avoids the ambiguity of command substitution.

-zefram