And I now understand the initial confusion as I attached the wrong picture in the first email. The picture I was supposed to send included both terminal windows which would (most likely) have explained the situation better than just that one terminal :-S
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Odd Beck <oddb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, in all fareness, this is highly unlikely that it would happen, but > it did happen to me while I was cleanup up some rubbish in my filesystem. > It wasn't a big deal as I quickly realized what was happening. > > Here's the way I reproduced it: > ---------------------------------------- > Terminal1: > mkdir -p ~/a/b > cd ~/a/b > > Terminal2: > cd ~ > rm -rf a/ > > Terminal1: > cd .. > cd: error retrieving current directory.................. > ---------------------------------------- > > It might not be a huge issue, but I though I'd report it. > > Best regards > > Odd Beck > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu> wrote: > >> On 2/8/16 11:34 AM, Linda Walsh wrote: >> >> >> Why would that be more reasonable than anything else? It references a >> >> path that doesn't exist. >> >> >> >> >> > Um...Not exactly. As long as there's a handle open to the previous >> path, >> > it still exists (at least on linux and unix). >> >> The actual filesystem objects still exist, but the named references to >> them >> (pathnames) do not. >> >> -- >> ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer >> ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates >> Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU c...@case.edu >> http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/ >> > >
