Path: utzoo!attcan!lsuc!maccs!cs4g6ag
From: cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Stephen M. Dunn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: What interprets *.*
Summary: it's a mixture
Message-ID: <2517ACC9.28246@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca>
Date: 20 Sep 89 15:29:13 GMT
References: <32164@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Stephen M. Dunn)
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario
Lines: 22

In article <32164@ames.arc.nasa.gov> gahooten@titan (Gregory A. Hooten) writes:
$In Unix, it is the shell that interprets the character *, what in
$DOS will do the same thing?  Is it left to the Command.com, or is it
$left to each utility to do on its own?

   It's a mishmash.  Some interpretation of *.* is done for you by DOS
(the part that lies above the BIOS but below the COMMAND.COM hierarchically).
For example, when you do a DIR *.*, COMMAND passes the *.* to the DOS
"Find first" (and, indirectly, "find next") routine which then takes care of
it.

   On the other hand, if you try to rename or delete a group of files,
this is not done by DOS; DOS requires a single file name for this.  COMMAND
(or any program you write) has to, in this case, translate *.* into a
series of filenames (this is done with the find first/find next calls).


-- 
Stephen M. Dunn                         cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca
**********************************************************************
       <std_disclaimer.h> = "\nI'm only an undergraduate!!!\n";
"VM is like an orgasm:  the less you have to fake, the better." - S.C.