On 08 Feb 2016 10:38, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 2/8/16 10:36 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu> writes:
> >> On 2/8/16 9:59 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >>> Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> `cd ..' should fail, since the parent no longer exists, and the pathname
> >>>> canonicalization should fail, since there's presumably no longer a valid
> >>>> path to reach the current directory. No value for $PWD is correct.
> >>>
> >>> ${PWD%/*} would be a reasonable value. FWIW, this is what ksh uses in
> >>> this case, it doesn't fail.
> >>
> >> Why would that be more reasonable than anything else? It references a
> >> path that doesn't exist.
> >
> > Sorry, I misread the OP's message. I didn't notice it's about the
> > parent's parent, not the parent.
>
> It's still an unlikely scenario.fwiw, i see it semi often when dealing with build systems: - use a package manager to build a package - PM creates a fresh new dir tree to build/install - build fails for whatever reason - go into that directory tree (usually multiple levels) - figure out problem - fix it in a diff window - re-run the PM command to build the package in shell in build tree - that shell's active tree is now gone and you get shell-init errors just google "shell-init error retrieving current directory" to see many other people randomly running into it as well. i see it weekly, but i know what's going on, and i build a lot of code. so is it "unlikely" ? i guess in the larger scheme of things compared it might be, but i wouldn't say it's so unlikely that a user would never see it. -mike
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
