According to Michael G Schwern: > Yes, there are lots of ways to check the cwd each filling in one edge > case or another. However I'd like to believe its possible to come up with > one simple, safe cwd() that works for 99.9% of the cases and call that cwd().
Well, it's certainly possible ... and it's not up to me, anyway; but I still think it's a Bad Idea to standardize like that. I've already said why (there's no good reason to pick one over another), though it doesn't surprise me opinions differ. :-, > A high level language really should smooth all that over. An HLL or LLL, it doesn't really matter. This isn't a language feature, this is an _operating_system_ feature. Pretending that the system is providing an attribute that it really isn't just confuses people in the long run. > * The cwd is deleted > * A parent directory is renamed > * A parent directory is a symlink s/parent/parent or current/g. Also: * A parent or current directory is relocated entirely, not just renamed within the same parent * A parent or current directory has become unreadable * Any of the above happens _during_ the execution of cwd(), rather than beforehand >  The state of Cwd.pm's docs add to my anxiety. Sucker punch. :-) -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Open Source is not an excuse to write fun code then leave the actual work to others.