Does cd . have use?












3















One of the tutorials I've been following briefly stated that cd . has no use. When trying to replicate issue shown by OP in Symbolic link recursion - what makes it “reset”?, I also tried cd ., which showed the same effect OP described (growing $PWD variable), which can be countered with cd -P.



This makes me wonder, is there any case where one does in fact would want to use cd . ?






cd-command







share|improve this question



























    3















    One of the tutorials I've been following briefly stated that cd . has no use. When trying to replicate issue shown by OP in Symbolic link recursion - what makes it “reset”?, I also tried cd ., which showed the same effect OP described (growing $PWD variable), which can be countered with cd -P.



    This makes me wonder, is there any case where one does in fact would want to use cd . ?






    cd-command







    share|improve this question

























      3












      3








      3








      One of the tutorials I've been following briefly stated that cd . has no use. When trying to replicate issue shown by OP in Symbolic link recursion - what makes it “reset”?, I also tried cd ., which showed the same effect OP described (growing $PWD variable), which can be countered with cd -P.



      This makes me wonder, is there any case where one does in fact would want to use cd . ?






      cd-command







      share|improve this question














      One of the tutorials I've been following briefly stated that cd . has no use. When trying to replicate issue shown by OP in Symbolic link recursion - what makes it “reset”?, I also tried cd ., which showed the same effect OP described (growing $PWD variable), which can be countered with cd -P.



      This makes me wonder, is there any case where one does in fact would want to use cd . ?






      cd-command




      cd-command






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked 2 hours ago









      Sergiy KolodyazhnyySergiy Kolodyazhnyy

      8,72412355




      8,72412355






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3














          The path of directory could have changed since the last executed command and without cd . bash and ksh93 shells will rely on logical working directory described in the linked post in the question; so calling cd . which makes the shell issue getcwd() syscall, will ensure your current path is still valid.



          Steps to reproduce in bash:




          1. in terminal tab issue mkdir ./dir_no_1; cd ./dir_no_1

          2. in different terminal tab issue mv dir_no_1 dir_no_2

          3. issue in first terminal tab echo $PWD and pwd. Notice that the directory has been externally renamed, shell's environment has not been updated.

          4. issue cd .; pwd; echo $PWD. Notice the value will be updated.


          ksh93, however, does not update the environment information, so cd . in ksh93 may in fact be useless. In /bin/dash on Ubuntu and other Debian based systems, cd . returns dash: 3: cd: can't cd to . error, however cd -P . works ( unlike in ksh93 ).






          share|improve this answer
























          • Good to know: I'll add that to my list of useless informations. ^^)

            – jayooin
            4 mins ago



















          2














          I think this is overthinking the problem. cd . may not be something that one would manually run in the usual course of things, but it definitely is something that can come up in programmatic execution (think of any situation where you might cd to the directory containing a file, whose path is supplied by the user). Therefore, it doesn't have to have some specific use: as long as it fulfills the usual semantics of cd <some-path>, it is useful.






          share|improve this answer
























          • Agreed, . should be treated as a valid path specified by cd syntax just fine.

            – Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
            1 hour ago











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "106"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f495899%2fdoes-cd-have-use%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          3














          The path of directory could have changed since the last executed command and without cd . bash and ksh93 shells will rely on logical working directory described in the linked post in the question; so calling cd . which makes the shell issue getcwd() syscall, will ensure your current path is still valid.



          Steps to reproduce in bash:




          1. in terminal tab issue mkdir ./dir_no_1; cd ./dir_no_1

          2. in different terminal tab issue mv dir_no_1 dir_no_2

          3. issue in first terminal tab echo $PWD and pwd. Notice that the directory has been externally renamed, shell's environment has not been updated.

          4. issue cd .; pwd; echo $PWD. Notice the value will be updated.


          ksh93, however, does not update the environment information, so cd . in ksh93 may in fact be useless. In /bin/dash on Ubuntu and other Debian based systems, cd . returns dash: 3: cd: can't cd to . error, however cd -P . works ( unlike in ksh93 ).






          share|improve this answer
























          • Good to know: I'll add that to my list of useless informations. ^^)

            – jayooin
            4 mins ago
















          3














          The path of directory could have changed since the last executed command and without cd . bash and ksh93 shells will rely on logical working directory described in the linked post in the question; so calling cd . which makes the shell issue getcwd() syscall, will ensure your current path is still valid.



          Steps to reproduce in bash:




          1. in terminal tab issue mkdir ./dir_no_1; cd ./dir_no_1

          2. in different terminal tab issue mv dir_no_1 dir_no_2

          3. issue in first terminal tab echo $PWD and pwd. Notice that the directory has been externally renamed, shell's environment has not been updated.

          4. issue cd .; pwd; echo $PWD. Notice the value will be updated.


          ksh93, however, does not update the environment information, so cd . in ksh93 may in fact be useless. In /bin/dash on Ubuntu and other Debian based systems, cd . returns dash: 3: cd: can't cd to . error, however cd -P . works ( unlike in ksh93 ).






          share|improve this answer
























          • Good to know: I'll add that to my list of useless informations. ^^)

            – jayooin
            4 mins ago














          3












          3








          3







          The path of directory could have changed since the last executed command and without cd . bash and ksh93 shells will rely on logical working directory described in the linked post in the question; so calling cd . which makes the shell issue getcwd() syscall, will ensure your current path is still valid.



          Steps to reproduce in bash:




          1. in terminal tab issue mkdir ./dir_no_1; cd ./dir_no_1

          2. in different terminal tab issue mv dir_no_1 dir_no_2

          3. issue in first terminal tab echo $PWD and pwd. Notice that the directory has been externally renamed, shell's environment has not been updated.

          4. issue cd .; pwd; echo $PWD. Notice the value will be updated.


          ksh93, however, does not update the environment information, so cd . in ksh93 may in fact be useless. In /bin/dash on Ubuntu and other Debian based systems, cd . returns dash: 3: cd: can't cd to . error, however cd -P . works ( unlike in ksh93 ).






          share|improve this answer













          The path of directory could have changed since the last executed command and without cd . bash and ksh93 shells will rely on logical working directory described in the linked post in the question; so calling cd . which makes the shell issue getcwd() syscall, will ensure your current path is still valid.



          Steps to reproduce in bash:




          1. in terminal tab issue mkdir ./dir_no_1; cd ./dir_no_1

          2. in different terminal tab issue mv dir_no_1 dir_no_2

          3. issue in first terminal tab echo $PWD and pwd. Notice that the directory has been externally renamed, shell's environment has not been updated.

          4. issue cd .; pwd; echo $PWD. Notice the value will be updated.


          ksh93, however, does not update the environment information, so cd . in ksh93 may in fact be useless. In /bin/dash on Ubuntu and other Debian based systems, cd . returns dash: 3: cd: can't cd to . error, however cd -P . works ( unlike in ksh93 ).







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 2 hours ago









          Sergiy KolodyazhnyySergiy Kolodyazhnyy

          8,72412355




          8,72412355













          • Good to know: I'll add that to my list of useless informations. ^^)

            – jayooin
            4 mins ago



















          • Good to know: I'll add that to my list of useless informations. ^^)

            – jayooin
            4 mins ago

















          Good to know: I'll add that to my list of useless informations. ^^)

          – jayooin
          4 mins ago





          Good to know: I'll add that to my list of useless informations. ^^)

          – jayooin
          4 mins ago













          2














          I think this is overthinking the problem. cd . may not be something that one would manually run in the usual course of things, but it definitely is something that can come up in programmatic execution (think of any situation where you might cd to the directory containing a file, whose path is supplied by the user). Therefore, it doesn't have to have some specific use: as long as it fulfills the usual semantics of cd <some-path>, it is useful.






          share|improve this answer
























          • Agreed, . should be treated as a valid path specified by cd syntax just fine.

            – Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
            1 hour ago
















          2














          I think this is overthinking the problem. cd . may not be something that one would manually run in the usual course of things, but it definitely is something that can come up in programmatic execution (think of any situation where you might cd to the directory containing a file, whose path is supplied by the user). Therefore, it doesn't have to have some specific use: as long as it fulfills the usual semantics of cd <some-path>, it is useful.






          share|improve this answer
























          • Agreed, . should be treated as a valid path specified by cd syntax just fine.

            – Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
            1 hour ago














          2












          2








          2







          I think this is overthinking the problem. cd . may not be something that one would manually run in the usual course of things, but it definitely is something that can come up in programmatic execution (think of any situation where you might cd to the directory containing a file, whose path is supplied by the user). Therefore, it doesn't have to have some specific use: as long as it fulfills the usual semantics of cd <some-path>, it is useful.






          share|improve this answer













          I think this is overthinking the problem. cd . may not be something that one would manually run in the usual course of things, but it definitely is something that can come up in programmatic execution (think of any situation where you might cd to the directory containing a file, whose path is supplied by the user). Therefore, it doesn't have to have some specific use: as long as it fulfills the usual semantics of cd <some-path>, it is useful.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 2 hours ago









          OlorinOlorin

          1,799313




          1,799313













          • Agreed, . should be treated as a valid path specified by cd syntax just fine.

            – Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
            1 hour ago



















          • Agreed, . should be treated as a valid path specified by cd syntax just fine.

            – Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
            1 hour ago

















          Agreed, . should be treated as a valid path specified by cd syntax just fine.

          – Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
          1 hour ago





          Agreed, . should be treated as a valid path specified by cd syntax just fine.

          – Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
          1 hour ago


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f495899%2fdoes-cd-have-use%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          Ponta tanko

          Image
          Usona ponta tanko M60A1 Ponta tanko estas, simile kiel kirasita savveturilo, inter specialaj kirasitaj transportiloj. Kiel pontaj tankoj eblas konsideri ĉiujn memmovigaj rimedoj ebligantaj superi obstaklojn ĝis larĝeco 24 metroj rekte en spaco de bataloperacoj. Ties ĉefa tasko estas ebligi al la propraj taĉmentoj daŭrigi en rapida antaŭenirado sen senbezona reteniĝo. El tio pli-malpli rezultas taktikaj-teknikaj postuloj, kiujn ili devas plenumi. Precipe temas pri kapablo operacii komune kun unue-sinsekvaj taĉmentoj kaj transpontigi obstaklojn dum kelke da minutoj. This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here
          Read more

          Tantalo (mitologio)

          Image
          Ĉi tiu artikolo temas pri mitologio. Por aliaj signifoj vidu la paĝon Tantalo (apartigilo) . Tantalo , laŭ Gioacchino Assereto. Laŭ la helena mitologio, Tantalo (el la greka Τάνταλος , ŝancelanta aŭ tre malfeliĉa ) estis filo de Zeŭso kaj la oceanidino Pluto, laŭ la plej divastigata versio. Li estis reĝo de Frigio [1] aŭ de la monto Sipilo, en Lidio (Malgrandazio) [2] kaj post sia morto li suferis eternan torturadon ĉe la Tartaro, la plej profunda parto de Hadeso, rezervita por la plej perversaj homoj. Tamen, kelkaj rakontoj asertas ke li estis reĝo de Argo aŭ de Korinto [3] , aŭ ke li migris norden el la monto Sipilo por akiri la tronon de Paflagonio, el kie Ilo forpelis lin pro tio, ke Tantalo forkaptis kaj seksperfortis lian fraton Ganimedon [4] , kaj tiel ofendis la diojn. Verŝajne li ankaŭ regis urbon en okcidenta Anatolio, kiun oni nomis Tantalis [5] pro li, aŭ Sipilo , pro la monto sur kies flanko ankoraŭ staras ĝiaj ruinaĵoj [6] . Laŭ la geografiisto Strabo,...
          Read more

          Erzsébet Schaár

          Image
          Erzsébet Schaár Memportreto de Erzsébet Schaár en Pécs Personaj informoj Naskiĝo 27-an de julio 1908 ( 1908-07-27 ) en Budafok Morto 29-an de aŭgusto 1975 ( 1975-08-29 ) (67-jara) en Budapeŝto Ŝtataneco Hungario Profesio skulptisto Familianoj Edz(in)o Tibor Vilt v   •   d   •   r Erzsébet Schaár [erĵEbet ŝAr], laŭ hungarlingve kutima sinsekvo Schaár Erzsébet estis hungara skulptisto. Ŝia edzo estis Tibor Vilt. Déryné Széppataki Róza en Miskolc fare de Erzsébet Schaár Erzsébet Schaár [1] naskiĝis la 27-an de julio 1908 en Budafok, ŝi mortis la 29-an de aŭgusto 1975 en Budapeŝto. Enhavo 1 Biografio 2 Elektitaj solaj ekspozicioj 3 Elektitaj kolektivaj ekspozicioj 4 Elektitaj skulptaĵoj 5 Elektitaj disĉiploj 6 Fontoj 7 Referencoj Biografio | Erzsébet Schaár studis en Industriarta Lernejo, poste en Reĝa Belarta Altlernejo (1924-1926). Ŝia ĉefinstruisto estis Zsig...
          Read more