[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Is this intended behavior??

From: Bruce Korb
Subject: Re: Is this intended behavior??
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:17:05 -0800


On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> wrote:
> On 2/11/13 2:25 PM, Bruce Korb wrote:
>>> /tmp/ZZ/a/b/c /tmp/ZZ/a /tmp/ZZ
>>> /tmp/ZZ/a/b/c
>>> $ popd /var/tmp
>>> /tmp/ZZ/a/b/c /tmp/ZZ/a
>>> /tmp/ZZ/a/b/c
>>> $
>> It is behaving as if it were seeing the "-0" option.
> It's unspecified behavior.  popd doesn't take any `non-option' arguments.
> As soon as you specify one, you can't really expect to know what will
> happen without experimentation or reading the source.

Not my source.  I was trying to replace crufty code. :)

> /var/tmp gets translated to the equivalent of -0 (if you're curious, it's
> because `/' isn't `+' and the default directory index is 0).
> It should probably be an error instead.

Perfect!  I was editing someone else's code and replacing pushd/popd with
cd $dir/cd $OLDPWD when I discovered this bizarre behavior because someone
had coded up "popd $WORKDIR" with that work directory being a full path.
I replaced that with "cd $OLDPWD" and the script failed.

Either an error or ignore the thing, just not something unanticipatable. :)

Thank you! - Bruce

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]