From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26603 invoked from network); 24 May 1998 06:00:53 -0000 Received: from math.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 24 May 1998 06:00:53 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by math.gatech.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id BAA17132; Sun, 24 May 1998 01:57:18 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 01:57:18 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <980523225726.ZM5196@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 22:57:26 -0700 In-Reply-To: <199805240444.XAA08814@hzoli.home> Comments: In reply to Zoltan Hidvegi "PWD parameter" (May 23, 11:44pm) References: <199805240444.XAA08814@hzoli.home> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.820 20aug96) To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu (Zsh hacking and development) Subject: Re: PWD parameter MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"fiYoV1.0.aB4.zQxPr"@math> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3992 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu On May 23, 11:44pm, Zoltan Hidvegi wrote: } Subject: PWD parameter } } The standard does not mention PWD or OLDPWD in the descriprion of the } shell special parameters Personally, I rather like having PWD be a special parameter. If you go by the letter of that standard you quoted, PWD would not be set at all when the shell first started up; it would only become set after a "cd". That's surely bogus. I'm all for following standards when the difference is meaningful in some way, but this seems entirely gratuitous. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com