Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!uwm.edu!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Wildcards Message-ID: <5421@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 19 Mar 90 14:16:57 GMT References: <102618@linus.UUCP> <5405@sugar.hackercorp.com> Reply-To: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Lines: 41 > Peter> In UNIX, you have to use several expressions: > Peter> _*.[ch] _*.bak ck*.[ch] ck*.bak *test*.[ch] *test*.bak > For csh users: {_,ck,*test}*.{[ch],bak} > AmigaDOS's (x|y|z) syntax is directly analogous to csh's {x,y,z}. No, it isn't. In most cases it can be used the same way, but it's not identical. The csh {,} syntax is parsed before wildcarding is done. It's not really an alternation operator, like the Amiga (|) syntax supports. For example, expanding {core,*.o} will produce the string "core" whether or not there is a file matching that pattern. This can be useful, but it's not the same thing. Also, as other people have pointed out, there's still no closure operator. How about all file names of the form cx followed by any number of digits? cx#(0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9) Also, of course, it's not available in scripts. > Granted, AmigaDOS wildcards are flexible and powerful, but I find them > less convenient to use than Unix wildcards, under most circumstances. Which is why my original message, that started this whole chain off, suggested using UNIX wildcards interactively and the more powerful Amiga wildcards in scripts. That suggestion, by the way, was that *all* uses of wildcards be marked explicitly, and all arguments not marked as wildcards not be wildcarded. On the Amiga, for example, anything not enclosed in parentheses would be treated literally. Anyway, Deven, get back to coding up Amigix & quit wasting time on News. :-> -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva . / \ \_.--._/ I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'