On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 17:29 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> William L. Maltby wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 12:49 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >
> >
> >> I have to work with a long path to a project working directory and I would
> >> like to have a simple script called "current" which would produce the same
> >> effect as issuing this from the shell:
> >>
> >> cd ./very/long/path/to/obscurely/titled/project/directory
> >>
> >><snip>
> >> As I am a digest subscriber in addition to your answer to the list the
> >> favour of a direct reply is requested
I tried, you bounced me for the return address. Sorry 'bout that!
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >
> > In addition to the other suggestions, I would like to add a simple user-
> > invoked solution. "Source" or ".". Any script invoked in this manner
> > runs in the current instance of the shell.
> >
> > IMO, if the user(s) are somewhat competent ("obscure project directory"
> > leads me to believe this may be the case), this simple solution may be
> > the most "elegant".
>
> I'd go for the symlink in that case. Perhaps even a directory symlinked
> into everyone's home/Desktop directory that contains symlinks to the
> obscure places. This has the advantage of providing non-obscure visible
> names, working with GUI tools and is self-documenting with 'ls -l'.
>
I like that even more than the ".". The advantages you state sway me and
require no expected level of "competency".
--
Bill