Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!broehl
From: broehl@watdcsu.UUCP (Bernie Roehl)
Newsgroups: net.micro.pc
Subject: Re: where are you after a batch file
Message-ID: <2063@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Feb-86 09:25:40 EST
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.2063
Posted: Wed Feb  5 09:25:40 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Feb-86 04:45:42 EST
References: <440@tekig5.UUCP> <1130@ecsvax.UUCP> <203@intelca.UUCP> <51@gumby.UUCP>
Reply-To: broehl@watdcsu.UUCP (Bernie Roehl)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 21

In article <51@gumby.UUCP> g-tsang@gumby.UUCP (Michael H. Tsang) writes:
>
>     In responding to the question of "where are you after a batch file?", I
>have written the following programs in Turbo Pascal.  They are "pushd.pas" and 
>"popd.pas".  These programs simulate the corresponding pushd and popd commands
>in UNIX.  It requires you to set up a file named "dirstack" in the directory
>"c:\tmp", but it can be changed by changing the constant StackFileName.

First, thanks to Michael Tsang for taking time to write and post these
programs.

Now, a suggestion: why doesn't somebody write a program that either (a) keeps
the directory stack in the environment, instead of having to have a writeable
file sitting around on disk and doing disk accesses for directory
pushing/popping?  Another approach would be a tiny program that gets the
current directory and then executes a fresh copy of command.com; when you
exit, the program would restore the current directory and then exit.  This
avoids scratch files and large environments, but takes up a few K of extra
ram for the fresh copy of the command interpreter.

Just some ideas...