From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19951 invoked from network); 18 Nov 1998 13:44:58 -0000 Received: from math.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 18 Nov 1998 13:44:58 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by math.gatech.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id IAA18912; Wed, 18 Nov 1998 08:43:24 -0500 (EST) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 08:43:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:41:09 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199811181341.OAA15564@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu In-reply-to: Peter Stephenson's message of Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:06:40 +0100 Subject: Re: bug 3.1.5 symlinks & cd Resent-Message-ID: <"G_L7l1.0.Od4.yxiKs"@math> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4670 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu Peter Stephenson wrote: > Sven Wischnowsky wrote: > > So the question is: do you think that this is enough (probably with > > some more work on the function) or should we build this into the shell? > > Isn't the problem only with ../ ? -/ and the rest happily follow > symlinks, it's only when going up there's a problem. In that case, it > would be OK to use -/ most of the time and only have a special > function when there's a ../ in the string so far. As the only case > where you would normally use this is ../ at the start (although I've > been known to use $PWD/.. when I needed an absolut path), I should > have thought a shell function for this one case would have been quite > good enough. ../../ etc. is a complication, but one a function could > still easily handle. (Unless I've missed some other potential > problem.) I don't see any other problem either. So I won't dive into the completion code today, fine. Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de