Sender:	rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID:	<3F55014A.989D7DE4@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date:	Tue, 02 Sep 2003 21:44:58 +0100
From:	Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.23 i586)
X-Accept-Language:	de,fr
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: /dev/c - c: or c:/ ?
References:	<3405-Mon01Sep2003191913+0300-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il> <002a01c370ca$b51801e0$2202a8c0 AT dualzastai> <20030902154229 DOT GB4599 AT kendall DOT sfbr DOT org> <200309021723 DOT h82HN1Lw017627 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> > This must be a djgpp-ism?  (There's no equivalent of /dev/c
> > under Linux or Solaris, is there?)  Anyway, it does seem
> > desirable that "cd `pwd`" DTRT....
> 
> Bash keeps track of where it thinks you are, and just reports that
> when you ask.  A standalone pwd.exe may give different results, just
> like Linux.

Yes, a stand-alone pwd does give different results:

bash-2.04$ pwd
/dev/v
bash-2.04$ /djgpp/bin/pwd.exe
c:/djgpp/bin

Note that I have no v: drive on my computer:

bash-2.04$ cd /dev/v/
bash: cd: /dev/v/: No such file or directory (ENOENT)

Bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]

- Raw text -