On 20 February 2013 01:20, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
> Please don't break threads by replying to individuals, it destroys the flow
>
>> of conversation :-)
>>
>
> What do you mean?
You just did it again. You're replying to my e-mail address and *not* the
general list. Please don't do that.
> I co
On 2/19/13 10:09 AM, Chris Down wrote:
>> Bash can be improved by making it check for changes on each return.
If you think this is true, use the existing mechanisms to test your
hypothesis.
PROMPT_COMMAND='cd $PWD || cd ${PWD%/*}'
will do much of what you say you want. You can modify that to f
Hi,
Please don't break threads by replying to individuals, it destroys the flow
of conversation :-)
I completely disagree that this would be an improvement to bash. It goes
against convention and the principle of least astonishment. It is very
un-Unix.
Chris
On 19 February 2013 22:56, Nikolas K
Nikolas Kallis writes:
> I have found a bug in Bash:
>
> /opt/foobar$
> /opt/foobar$ rmdir ../foobar/
> /opt/foobar$
>
> With the above, one can see I deleted the directory 'foobar/' from within
> the directory itself. What one can also see is that after I deleted the
> directory, I was still in
This is to do with the way Linux handles open file descriptors. It is not a
bug in bash, it is expected (and anticipated) behaviour.
Chris
On 19 February 2013 14:00, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I have found a bug in Bash:
>
> /opt/foobar$
> /opt/foobar$ rmdir ../foobar/
> /opt/foobar
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:00:32 +1100, Nikolas Kallis
wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I have found a bug in Bash:
>
> /opt/foobar$
> /opt/foobar$ rmdir ../foobar/
> /opt/foobar$
>
> With the above, one can see I deleted the directory 'foobar/' from
> within the directory itself. What one can also see
