Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!amdahl!drivax!frotz From: frotz@drivax.UUCP (Frotz) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: Zoo and directories Message-ID: <25169956.1610@drivax.UUCP> Date: 19 Sep 89 19:53:57 GMT References: <2387@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu> Sender: frotz@drivax.UUCP Reply-To: frotz@drivax.UUCP Distribution: comp Organization: Digital Research, Monterey CA Lines: 36 root@cca.ucsf.edu (Systems Staff) writes: >In article , jv@mh.nl (Johan Vromans) writes: >> >> I was wondering why Zoo ignores directories passed on the command >> line. I find it irritating and error-prone that Zoo ignores them >> *SILENTLY*. > >Several postings have really missed the point here. >The only question is whether it is a design bug (intentional) or >implementation bug (unintentional). WARNING: Personal opinion and conjecture about to follow... If you look at the history of zoo and what it was trying to replace (the A-word...;-), it made sense to use the novice command set because it was very, very similar to what was being replaced... (NOTE: I have not heard this from Rahul, but have concluded this based on my own learning curve (oh, so long ago...;-)) If one looks at it, the 1.71 manual (I assume the 2.0x manual as well), state the the novice option "-add" is defined as the expert option "aP:" which adds files without directories and then packs the archive when finished. This behaviour is exactly like other [net-in]famous archiving programs... It is therefore my opinion that Rahul attempted to create a novice interface that worked and looked like the then-ruling archiving program(s). In this I feel he has succeeded. Please notice the key words "worked and looked like". No, I don't think that this is a ..., no, I won't say it...;-} --Frotz @Digital Research, Incorporated amdahl!drivax!frotz 70 Garden Court, B15 (408) 649-3896 Monterey, California 93940 Ask for John Fa'atuai