In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Scott Blachowicz writ es: >> > I guess that I don't understand your answer. You seem to be looking at t >he >> >> i think he's offering an analogy. > >An example, but more variations that necessary to illustrate the point :). > >> > results of ls, not the results of changing directories. Let's >> > say that I have two filesystems /a and /b. There is a >> > directory /a/foo. I cd to /b and do a "ls -s /a/foo ." If I >> > now do a cd /b/foo/.., I end up in /a, not /b. This isn't >> > just a function of the shell, it's what chdir(2) does. But, >> > the > >With that example and using my shell (usually zsh, but others do this too), >the sequence of commands: > > cd /b/foo > cd .. > >puts me in /b, NOT in /a. That's because, as Paul mentions:
sh, csh and tcsh doesn't, at least not on Solaris. On linux, where sh is a disguised bash, sh follows symlinks instead of the physical path. So, we tcsh users are used to one way, and bash/zsh/ksh users to another. :-) //Christer -- | Sys admin @ MEDIC WWW: http://www.dtek.chalmers.se/ | | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (0)31 772 5431, (0)707 53 57 57 | "I fought the loa and the loa won, I fought the loa and the loa won..." -- Dave Aronsson, a.s.r. _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
