pwd

[steve@gec-epl.co.uk (Steve_Kilbane)]

I agree with Pete Fenelon's earlier message - there's too much here which
is based on opinion.

> From: kelsey%mdd.comm.mot.com@gec-epl.co.uk (Joe Kelsey)
> I suggest that the objectors give it a fair trial (meaning *try* to
> use it for at least a week--and I mean give up your prejudiced notions
> and really try to use it) and then report back on your experiences.  I
> think that your conclusions might come out differently.

I think there's something important here - not that the topic is how es
interprets pwd, .., etc, but that there is a difference of opinion on how
es should behave, and that the differences are personal. I think in such
situations, es should behave in a simple and predictable fashion, allowing
the user to build in their own preferences if required.

Of course, "simple and predictable" is ammunition for both camps. What I
mean is, I expect the following two "ls" commands to provide identical
output (apart from the . and .. names):
; cd foo
; ls -ld ..
; cd ..
; ls -ld .

Steve.