> I guess that I don't understand your answer. You seem to be looking at t
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,
With that example and using my shell (usually zsh, but others do this too),
the sequence of commands:
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
| Sys admin @ MEDIC WWW: http://www.dtek.chalmers.se/ |
| Email: mort(_at_)dtek(_dot_)chalmers(_dot_)se 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