Subject: Re: csh pushd
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Christos Zoulas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/19/2004 22:18:59
In article <20040419122437.GB23603@netmeister.org>,
Jan Schaumann <email@example.com> wrote:
>Christos Zoulas <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> In article <20040417170638.GB13247@netmeister.org>,
>> Jan Schaumann <email@example.com> wrote:
>> >Secondly, if n is 0, csh treats it as a director name. Even though
>> >'pushd +0' is a no-op, I believe it should not try to interpret '+0' as
>> >a directory. Especially, since directories named '+n' (for n != 0) need
>> >to be escaped if they are to be used as names rather than number. (Ie
>> >to push the directory named '+1' on the stack, you'd have to do 'pushd
>> >\+1' - the same should hold for '+0')
>> >Am I correct with this?
>> Yes, but historically this is how csh has behaved. I.e. +0 was interpreted
>> as a directory. I don't think it matters.
>Question is, do we want to retain this behaviour for historic reasons or
>rather do the (albeit not really helpful) right thing, then?
I'd leave it alone; less effort.