At Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:19:58 +0200, Tobias Hammer wrote: > On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:39:22 +0200, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> > wrote: > > For module paths, "same file" involves only syntactic normalizations of > > the pathname (e.g., no checking for soft links). Various pieces of the > > system are carefully implemented to be consistent with syntactic > > normalization. For example, suppose that PLTCOLLECTS is set to > > "/home/mflatt/plt", but "/home/mflatt" is a symlink to "/Users/mflatt"; > > pathnames associated to modules that are accessed via collection will > > consistently use "/home/mflatt", and not somehow hop over to > > "/Users/mflatt". As long as a user is similarly consistent when > > supplying paths, it all works out. > > That matches my observations. Files accessed via collection always keep > their > paths 'as is'. But it is enough to start a program via racket <file> > instead of > racket -l what/ever to break this.
I should have mentioned that you could use `racket <full-path-to-file>' to avoid the problem, which is a workaround that I have used often. > > So, Racket should take advantage of the information that nice shells > > provide. Probably it should also act as a nice shell by default. > > What exactly do you mean by acting as a nice shell? Setting PWD for > subprocesses? > In that sense it should definitely be nice (by default). Yes. > > (As it happens, I use "csh" on Mac OS X, and it's not nice in the above > > sense. That helps explain why I never got PWD vs. cwd() before.) > > Just tried bash, csh and ksh on linux and they all seem to set PWD. But i > can't tell > if thats the default or specific to my installation. I think it may be part of the BSD legacy for Mac OS X. On my Linux installations, csh works as you describe. _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
